TO 

GV 1 



\£77 

.vrz 

1ST* 



i 





— — —_^ 3 • 



f Q „ H 



c "7Tb 



.Ins. 






TO 

EDWAED TAVENER FOSTER 
THIS book: 

IS 

CORDIALLY DEDICATED, 

BY 

His Sincere Friend 

THE AUTHOR. 



I 



m 




PEEFACB. 



In the present volume the Author has reproduced 
(with corrections and numerous augmentations), 
some miscellaneous papers on subjects connected with 
Cards, which have hitherto been buried in back 
numbers of periodicals. 

Also Decisions by the late Mr. Clay, to which some 
are added that have not been previously published. 

The concluding portion of the volume consists of 
notes of events which have come within the Author's 
personal experience, at Cards or in connection with 
Card-players, during the last twenty years. 

The matters related as anecdotes have all actually 
happened. None have been manufactured for the 
sake of effect. It is possible that some of the char- 
acters may be recognized by a limited circle ; but the 
Authqj has been careful not to " name names," ex- 
cept where the persons referred to are beyond the 
pale of offence or injury. 

An apology should, perhaps, be tendered for the 
number of capital "Vb" expended in the latter part 
of the volume. An attempt has been made to keep 
them down ; but it has been found impossible to ex- 
clude them when relating personal experiences. 

(3> 



4 PREFACE. 

A word as to the frontispiece. The idea of pub- 
lishing his counterfeit presentment occurred to the 
Author recently, on discovering that a hideous full- 
page caricature of himself (purporting to be a por- 
trait) had appeared in a London periodical. 

Portland Club, August, 1879. 



CONTENTS 



CAKD ESSAYS:— 

Whist versus Chess 

On the Morality of Card-Playing. . 
On the Origin and Development op Cards 
and Card-Games . 
Bibliography . 
On the Etymology of Whist, 
Duties on Playing-Cards 
Moliere on Piquet . . 
The Duffer's Whist Maxims 



DECISIONS OF THE LATE MR. CLAT 



CARD-TABLE TALK 



PAGE. 

7 

18 

• 

43 
70 
72 
83 
199 
106 

111 

139 



CARD ESSAYS. 



WHIST versus CHESS. 



u As for the Chesse, I think it over-fond, because it is too over-wise 
and philosophicke a folly." — Basilicon Doron. 

41 What Game indeed, of all the num'rous list, 
In point of beauty, can compare to Whist." 
— Whist , a Poem in twelve Cantos, 

by Alexander Thomson, Canto v., 1. 27, 28. 



Whist and Chess have often been compared ; 
generally to the disadvantage of the former. The 
votaries of Caissa are loth to admit that any other 
indoor game will bear comparison with Chess. Let 
us see what can be said in favor of Whist. 

It will be admitted that some games possess a higher 
generic character than others, just as, in literature, 
epics rank above ballads. Both Whist and Chess 
are placed, by common consent, so to speak, in the 
epic class, and probably, as regards sedentary games, 
those two only. If, then, we inquire what game it is 
that, in largeness of conception and in fitness for pur- 
poses of recreation, transcends every other, the reply 
will be found by comparing the claims of Whist and 
Chess. 

First, as to the two intellectual faculties brought 
into exercise by the two games. Chess may be de- 

(i) 



8 CARD ESSAYS. 



scribed as a series of analytical problems, in which the 
business of the player having the move is to determine 
his correct play from certain data. One mental power 
only then is requisite for the chess-player, viz. : the 
power of analysis. It was the possession of this fac- 
ulty in unusual perfection which enabled Deschapelles 
to*beat the best players of his time after four days' 
practice, and by what he called a sudden impulse to 
stamp Chess upon his brain. " I mastered the moves," 
he said, "played with Bernard who had succeeded 
Philidor, as the monarch of the board. I lost the 
first day, and the second and third; but I beat 
him even-handed on the fourth, since when I have 
never either advanced or receded. To me, Chess has 
been a single idea, which, once acquired, cannot be 
displaced from its throne, provided the intellect re- 
mains unimpaired. " 

There is no similar experience of Whist having 
been suddenly learnt, though there might be of 
Double Dummy, which, like Chess, presents a definite 
problem for solution. No man, not even Descha- 
pelles himself (the finest Whist player, according to 
Clay, the world has ever seen), could learn to play 
Whist tolerably in four days. Deschapelles wrote on 
this point — * ' A man may play Whist for several weeks. 
He will then find it is necessary for him to apply his 
knowledge for three or four years before he discovers 
how difficult a game it is." — Traite du Whiste, frag- 
ment du Chapitre XV. And the reason is not far to 
seek. In order thoroughly to investigate the theory, 
and to arrive at the principles of Whist, mathematics 
and careful reasoning have,* to be employed. The 
theory, indeed, may now be learnt readily enough 



CARD ESSAYS. 



from books ; but the practice, to be of the first order, 
involves a great variety of accomplishments. 

To apply the theory of Whist successfully, the player 
must note the peculiarities of partners and of oppo- 
nents ; that is, he must study human nature. He 
must use observation, memory, inference, and judg- 
ment in such a way as to enable himself to trace ap- 
pearances to their true origin. He must be by turns 
cautious and bold. He must exercise watchfulness 
and tact. He must shrewdly shield himself against 
deception. He must level well-weighed arguments 
at every card that falls. And in short, as Dr. Pole 
well observes, he must bring to bear on the game 
M such a general course of thought and action as must 
be dictated by competent and well-trained mental 
powers." 

Deschapelles calls Chess a "single idea," in the 
sense of simple {simplex) ; Whist may, in a similar 
sense, be regarded as a compound idea. 

Now, as to the variety of Whist and Chess. It is 
hardly necessary to state that great variety is essen- 
tial to scientific games, to prevent exhaustion by sys- 
tematic analysis. Variety is also necessary to popu- 
lar games, in order to check repetition, and to prevent 
the interest they excite from flagging. In variety, 
both Whist and Chess are practically infinite. The 
possible combinations in both games are, humanly 
speaking, inexhaustible. Theoretically, the whole 
progress of a perfect game at Chess is dependent on 
the move made by the first player. And there being 
twenty moves open to him, the number of absolutely 
perfect games that mighTbe played is twenty. But 
even of these twenty games it cannot be contended 



10 CARD ESSAYS. 



that all would be of equal excellence, because some 
one or two of the original twenty nioves ought to be 
superior to all the others. Practically, Chess is not 
thus limited, because when the analytical power of one 
player fails to conduct him to the perfect move, a 
variation is introduced, on which the opponent has in 
turn to exert his powers of analysis, and so on. 
Hence, without seeking to deny that Chess is, for 
practical purposes, inexhaustible, it is still the fact 
that the great variety of Chess is not inherent in the 
game itself, but is due to imperfections in the 
analytical skill of the antagonists. As far as the ex- 
ercise of judgment based on probabilities is con- 
cerned, Chess is valueless ; because no Chess player 
would hazard a move other than the best suggested 
by his analytical skill, on the chance of the adver- 
sary's failing to take advantage of his error. Reduc- 
tion of variety within narrow bounds is consequently 
the ultimate limit to which the practice of Chess ap- 
proaches, in proportion as the analytical skill of the 
players increases. 

Though at Whist hands may be grouped so as to 
admit the application of certain principles of play to 
certain sets, no exhaustive demonstration of these 
principles is possible. No proof can be given. The 
student has frequently to be satisfied if the reasons 
in favor of a certain line of play appear weighty in 
themselves, and if none weightier can be suggested 
in support of a contrary course ; also, he has often 
to be contented with the assurance that particular 
methods of play, having sjpod the test of time, are 
generally adopted by experfenced players. In depth, 
then, Whist may be said to be immeasurable, which, 



CARD ESSAYS. 11 



Chess is not. Moreover, the variety, of hands on 
which a Whist player has to exercise his mental 
powers is not only very considerable, but is entirely 
independent of his volition. Hence at Whist an in- 
definite number of perfect games may be played, in 
the sense of obtaining the best practicable result, 
supposing every card played to be the best possible, 
having regard to calculation and to observation. 

The original blindfoldness of the leader at Whist 
with regard to the position of thirty-eight of the cards, 
introduces elements of variety in that game alto- 
gether different from what is met with at Chess. At 
Whist there is a constant endeavor on the part of 
one side to arrive at the maximum result for their 
hands, by the use of observation, memory, inference, 
and judgment, their play being dependent from trick 
to trick on the inferred position of the unknown from 
observation of the known. There is also a similar 
constant endeavor on the part of the other side. 
Here is none of the analytical rigidity which distin- 
guishes Chess. The changeableness of the known 
elements to which analysis can be applied is one of 
the special charms of Whist, and it introduces variety 
of a kind to which there is no parallel in Chess. At 
Chess, thA moves are suggested by the application of 
analysis based on inspection ; at Whist, the play 
results from exercise of judgment, based on observa- 
tion and inference. 

The power of the Whist pieces being much more 
limited and defined than that of the men at Chess, 
the nett analytical result in any given Whist case is 
much easier to obtain than in any given Chess case ; 
bo in the matter of duration of interest, Chess must 



12 CARD ESSAYS. 



be allowed to take a position above Whist, though 
it may be questioned whether the prolonged strain 
requisite to play Chess well does not remove that 
game altogether out of the category of recreations. 

Next, let us measure the social relations of Whist 
and Chess. Whist is sometimes called an unsocial 
game, because lookers-on are not allowed to speak. 
But Chess equally loves "retirement and the mute 
silence," and there is no interval at Chess, as there is 
at Whist between the hands, when conversation may 
be freely indulged in. There is no cutting in and 
cutting out, and consequently no frequent change of 
adversaries. Chess, again, only engages two players 
instead of four. And the fact that Whist is a game 
of partnership, introduces social elements which are 
altogether wanting at Chess. Owing to this cause, 
the practice of Whist tends to fit the players for grap- 
pling with the affairs of life. This characteristic of 
Whist has been noticed by several eminent writers. 
Bulwer, himself an accomplished Whist player, refers 
to it in his novel of " Alice.' ' He says — "Fate has 
cut and shuffled the cards for you ; the game is yours 
unless you revoke ; — pardon my metaphor, — it is a 
favorite one ; — I have worn it threadbare ; but life is 
so like a rubber at Whist." * 

Dr. Pole, in illustration of this point, says : — Whist 
is " a perfect microcosm — a complete miniature so- 
ciety in itself. Each player has one friend, to whom 
he is bound by the strongest ties of mutual interest 
and sympathy ; but he has twice the number of ene- 
mies against whose machinations he is obliged to 
keep perpetual guard. He must give strict adherence 
to the established laws and conventional courtesies 



CARD ESSAYS. 13 



of his social circle ; he is called upon for candid and 
ingenuous behavior ; he must exercise moderation in 
prosperity, patience in adversity, hope in doubtful 
fortune, humility when in error, forbearance to the 
faults of his friends, self-sacrifice for his allies, equa- 
nimity under the success of his adversaries, and gen- 
eral good temper throughout all his transactions. 
His best efforts will sometimes fail, and fortune will 
favor his inferiors ; but sound principles will triumph 
in the end. Is there nothing in all this analogous to 
the social conditions of ordinary life ?" And again 
the same writer remarks — " Does not the proverb 
represent the clever, successful man as ' playing his 
cards well?" ' 

Sir George Lewis, in " Methods of Observation and 
Reasoning in Politics," says : — " We hear of the game 
of politics, and of moves being made on the political 
board. Practical politics, however, do not so much 
resemble a game of Chess as a game of Whist. In 
Chess, the position of the pieces at the beginning of 
the game is precisely similar for both contending par- 
ties, and every move is made by the deliberate choice 
of the players. The result depends, therefore, exclu- 
sively on their comparative skill ; chance is alto- 
gether exc^ded. In Whist, on the other hand, the 
distribution of the cards depends upon chance ; that 
is to say, it depends upon circumstances not within 
the control of any of the players ; "but, with the cards 
so casually dealt out, each player plays according to 
his free choice. The result, therefore, depends partly 
upon chance, or luck as it is called, and partly upon 
skill. This is exactly analogous to the state of things 
in politics. A large number of circumstances upon 



14 CARD ESSAYS. 



4 

which the practical politician has to act are beyond 
his control. They are, like a hand at cards, dealt 
out to him by a power which he cannot regulate. 
But he can guide those circumstances which are 
within his power, and the ultimate result will de- 
pend, partly upon the character of the circumstances 
upon which he has to act, and partly upon the wis- 
dom, skill, and prudence with which he conducts 
himself in reference to them. If the circumstances 
are very adverse, the utmost skill may be unavailing 
to produce a successful result. If they be propitious, 
he may be successful with a moderate amount of 
good management. If the circumstances should be 
unfavorable, good management will only meet with 
checkered success, and will be no effectual security 
against occasional reverses, though it will be success- 
ful in the long run, and taking together both favor- 
able and unfavorable circumstances." 

From these extracts it would seem that Whist pos- 
sesses higher claims than Chess from a social point 
of view. 

Lastly, as to fitness for the purposes of recreation. 
In simplicity of construction Whist is peculiarly for- 
tunate. All that is necessary to be known before 
attempting to play is the order of the cards, and the 
facts that the highest card wins the trick and that 
trumps win other suits. Admiral Burney tells a 
story of a young man who was desirous of learning 
Whist. On being informed of the construction of 
the game, he said — " Oh ! if that is all, I shall be able 
to play as well as any one in half an hour." If he 
had said he could learn the mise en seme of the game 
in a few minutes, he would have been right. 



CARD ESSAYS. 15 



Chess, though not a game of extreme complexity, 
requires more preliminary instruction than Whist. 
To know the moves is considered by some persons to 
be an accomplishment, and as regards the amount 
of "book" requisite to play one or the other game 
fairly well, Whist is a long way to the front. 

Then as to the comparative interest excited by the 
two games. To arrive at a just estimate on this head 
we must divide games into three classes : — 

1. Games of chance, such as rouge-et-noir, rou- 
lette, and pitch-and-toss. These are mere vehicles for 
gambling, and excite scarcely any interest unless 
played for money. 

2. Games into which both skill and chance enter, 
or mixed games, such as whist, piquet, and back- 
gammon. These excite more interest than games of 
chance. 

3. Games of skill, such as chess and draughts. 
These excite too much interest. To play well at 
Chess is too hard work. The game of Chess — not 
skittling Chess, but Chess played as it should be — 
instead of being resorted to as a distraction and a 
relief from toil, is in the hands of real artists the 
business of their lives, and, in this sense, it can hardly 
be regarded as a game at all. 

It is, then, to mixed games that we must look for 
the happy medium which excites sufficient but not 
too great interest. To be candid, it must be admit- 
ted that chance enters too largely into Whist to ren- 
der it a perfect game, owing to the preponderance of 
honors. Clay observes on this point that Short Whist 
is " in full vigor, in spite of at least one very glar- 
ing defect — the undue value of the honors, which are 



16 CARD ESSAYS. 



pure luck, as compared with that of the tricks, which 
greatly depend on skill. Short Whist bears this 
mark of its hasty and accidental origin. If the 
change had been carefully considered, the honors 
would have been cut in half, as well as the points. 
Two by honors would have counted one point. Four 
by honors would have counted two. Had this been 
so, the game would be perfect, but the advantage of 
skill would be so great as to limit considerably the 
number of players." Clay then explains the circum- 
stances of the " hasty and accidental origin " of Short 
Whist. He continues: — "Some sixty or seventy 
years back," that would be about the beginning of 
this century, "Lord Peterborough having one night 
lost a large sum of money, the friends with whom he 
was playing proposed to make the game five points 
instead of ten, in order to give the loser a chance, at 
a quicker game, of recovering his loss." 

It is no secret that the committee appointed in 1863 
to revise the laws of Whist had the question of the 
reduction of honors brought before them ; but they 
feared to make so large an alteration in the game, 
lest the new laws should only meet with partial adop- 
tion. 

Nevertheless, Whist, with its imperfectly-balanced 
complements of skill and chance, goes very near to 
exciting the proper amount of interest. The entry of 
chance into Whist diminishes the labor of playing, 
and varies the faculties of the mind called into opera- 
tion. The combinations that ensue afford numerous 
openings for the employment of skill, and watching 
the chances keeps the mental powers pleasantly oc- 
cupied, while the cessation of play between the hands, 



CARD ESSAYS. 17 



like the pause between the beats of the heart, obvi- 
ates the ill-effect of long-continued effort. 

The objection sometimes brought against Whist, 
that it is a card game, and that therefore it may lead 
to gambling, does not require* serious refutation. 
Chess may be, and often is, played for money ; but it 
is no discredit to any game that it may be abused 
instead of being used. 

Has it not been shown that Whist, as a game, pos- 
sesses claims to be ranked above Chess ? Has it not 
been shown that Whist is calculated to promote to 
the utmost the amusement and relaxation of those 
employed ? The game of Whist may fairly be said 
to combine the means of innocent recreation, of 
healthy excitement, and of appropriate mental exer- 
cise, and thus to fulfil, in the highest degree, the 
purposes for which it was designed. 



18 CARD ESSAYS. 



ON THE MORALITY OF CARD-PLATING. 



"A man, no Shoter (not longe agoo) wolde defende playing at 
Cardes and Dise, if it were honestly used." 

—Toxophilus, Roger Ascham. 

"Let Cards, therefore, not be depreciated; an happy invention, 
which, adapted equally to every capacity, removes the invidious dis- 
tinctions of nature, bestows on fools the pre-eminence of genius, or 
reduces wit and wisdom to the level of folly." 

—History of Great Britain, Henry, vol. xii. p. 385. 



In the previous paper it was argued that games at 
their best combine the means of innocent recreation, 
of healthy excitement, and of appropriate mental 
exercise. A perfect game ought to excite such an 
amount of interest that it may be played for its own 
sake, without needing the stimulus of gambling. 

The reason cards are regarded as the gamester's 
stock-in-trade all over the world is, no doubt, that 
they may readily, and in various ways, be made to 
minister to the excitement of " play." At the same 
time it must not be forgotten that cards also minister 
with equal readiness to the lawful amusement of 
men. But, inasmuch as cards are frequently made 
use of as convenient gambling implements, the 
"devil's books" are associated by many excellent 



CARD ESSAYS. 19 



people, who only regard one side of the shield, with 
all kinds of wickedness. Gambling, with its concom- 
itants, cheating, quarrelling, swearing, and many 
other vicious habits, have been unsparingly attrib- 
uted to the card table. This is a mere consequence 
of association of ideas. The shady doings charged 
on cards should properly be charged on games, 
whether of cards or not, whose exciting element is a 
stake, the winning or losing of which depends on 
chance. Cards, properly used, are seductive, but 
harmless instruments of social relaxation. It is no 
reason we should refrain from playing with cards 
because other persons have made a bad use of them. 
We might as well all become total abstainers because 
some of pur countrymen are in the habit of getting 
drunk. It may be regarded as an axiom that the 
unsatisfactory associations connected with card-play- 
ing have arisen solely from the abuse of cards, and 
not from any evil qualities necessarily inherent in 
them. As M. Merlin remarks (Origine des Cartes a 
jouer, Paris, 1869), " Cards have not created the pas- 
sion of play ; it has been a moral flaw from the most 
remote antiquity. But cards have assisted in devel- 
oping this passion, because they offer it a very man- 
ageable and attractive instrument.' ' 

The present paper, then, will resolve itself into an 
examination of the morality of playing at any game 
for a stake, and not necessarily of playing at card- 
games for a stake. It will be a convenient method 
of conducting this examination to begin by quoting 
various writers who have recorded their opinions on 
the subject. 

St. Cyprian, in a homily of high antiquity on gam- 



20 CARD ESSAYS. 



ing, entitled De Aleatoribus (probably not written by 
St. Cyprian), calls games of hazard the nets of the 
Devil ; and affirms that they were invented at the 
prompting of the evil spirit. The writer consequently 
maintains that whosoever plays at such games offers 
sacrifice to their author, and so commits an act of 
idolatry. Others have held similar opinions. Daniel 
Souter, a Flemish clergyman, in a treatise published 
about the middle of the seventeenth century, main- 
tains that all games of hazard are contrary to every 
one of the ten commandments ! 

In the latter part of the sixteenth century was pub- 
lished " A Treatise wherein Dicing, Daucing, Vaine 
Plaies or Enterludes, with other idle pastimes, &c, 
commonly vsed on the Sabboth day, are reprooved 
by the Authoritie of the Worde of God and auncient 
writers. Made Dialogue- wise by John Northbrooke. 
Imprinted at London by Thomas Dawson, for George 
Bishoppe, 1579." 

The reverend author is very verbose, and rather 
declaims than argues against play. In his address to 
the reader he says — " What is a man now a daies if 
he knows not fashions and ho we to weare his apparell 
after the best fashion ? to keepe Companie, and to be- 
come Mummers and Dice plaiers, and to plaie their 
twentie, fortie, or 100. Z. at Cardes, Dice, &c, Post, 
Cente, Gleke or such other games : if he cannot thus 
do he is called a miser, a wretch, a lobbe, a cloune, 
and one that knoweth no fellowship nor fashions, and 
less honestie. And by such kind of Plaies many of 
them are brought into great Miserie and Penurie." 

In the " Invective against Dice-plaie " (and an in- 
vective it is very properly named), the arguments, 



CARD ESSAYS. 21 



such as they are, amount briefly to this — that though 
honest men play, the persons make not the play good, 
but rather it makes them bad. That loss of goods is 
to be imputed to the play as well as to the men, for if 
you take away the means there will be no playing, 
and it is most difficult for a man to restrain the bridle 
of things desired. Dice were invented by Lucifer, the 
Prince of Devils, and dice-play leads to blasphemy, 
robbery, craft, covetousness, deceit, and a list of hor- 
rors too long to quote, but embracing nearly every 
possible crime. To the question whether it is lawful 
to play any game for money, the author answers in 
the negative, because play was not appointed as a 
means to get money, but only for exercise or recrea- 
tion ; and whoever uses it for gain, abuses and changes 
the intention \ and whatever a man wins at play, 
being naughtily gotten, is not his own. As for cards, 
they are almost as bad as dice, but not quite, as wit 
is more used at cards, and less trust in chance and 
fortune. Dice-play is the mother, card-play the 
daughter. They draw, both with one string, all the 
followers thereof into idleness, loitering, blasphemy, 
misery, infamy, penury and confusion. He then quotes 
St. Cyprian, and agrees with him that cards were in- 
vented by the Devil to bring in idolatry among men. 
For the Kings and coate cards, he says, were in old 
times the images and idols of false gods. He finally 
concludes that cards and dice are only fit for brutal 
and ignorant men. 

In 1583 was published " The Anatomie of Abuses, 
containing A Discoverie or briefe Summarie of such 
notable Vices and Corruptions as now raigne in many 
Christian Countreyes of the World ; but especially 



22 CARD ESSAYS. 



in the Countrey Ailgna [Anglia, England]. Together 
with the most fearefull Examples of God's Judgments 
executed upon the Wicked for the same, as well in 
Ailgnia of late as in other Places elsewhere. Made 
Dialogue- wise by Philip Stubs." In the person of 
Philoponus, he remarks — " As for Cards, Dice, Tables, 
Boules, Tennise and such like, thei are Furta Officiosa, 
a certaine kind of smoothe, deceipt-full and sleightie 
thefte, whereby many a one is spoiled of all that he 
ever hath, sometimes of his life withall, yea, of bodie 
and soule for ever : and yet (more is the pitie) these 
bee the only exercises used in every mans house, al 
the yere through. But especially in Christmas Time, 
there is nothing els used but Cardes, Dice, Tables, 
Maskyng, Mummyng, Bouling, and such like fooleries. 
And the reason is, thei think thei have a commission 
and prerogative that tyme to doe what thei list, and 
to folio we what vanitie thei will. But (alas) doe thei 
thinke that thei are privileged at that tyme to doe 
evill ? the holier the tyme is (if one tyme were holier 
than another, as it is not) the holier ought their ex- 
ercises to bee." 

Nevertheless, he allows that men may sometimes 
play at games for recreation, but not for money. 
Being asked by Spudeus, "Is it not lawfull for one 
Christian man to plaie with an other at any kinde of 
Game, or to winne his money, if he can?" he replies, 
" To plaie at Tables, Cardes, Dice, Boules or the like 
(though a good , Christian man will not so idely and 
vainely spend his golden daies), one Christian with 
another, for their private recreations, after some op- 
pression of studie, to drive awaie fantasies, and suche 
like, I doubt not but thei may. using it moderately, 



CARD ESSAYS. 23 



with intermission, and in the feare of God. But for to 
plaie for lucre of gaine, and for desire onely of his 
brother's substance, rather than for any other cause, 
is at no hande lawfull, or to be suffered. For as it is 
not lawfull to robbe, steale, and purloine by deceite 
or sleight, so it is not lawfull to get thy brother's 
goodes from hym by Cardyng, Dicyng, Tablyng, 
Boulyng, or any other kind of theft, for these games 
are no better, nay worser than open theft, for open 
theft every man can beware of ; but this beying a 
craftie, polliticke theft, and commonly doen under 
pretence of freendship, fewe, or none at all, can be- 
ware of it. The Commandement saieth, Thou shalt 
not covet nor desire anything that belongeth to thy 
neighbour. Now, it is manifest that those that plaie 
for money, not onely covet their brother's money, but 
also use craft, falshood, and deceite to winne the 
same." 

At the end of the sixteenth century, James Balm- 
ford, a Puritanical clergyman, or as he would now be 
called, a Low Churchman, published a pamphlet of 
sixteen pages, called " A short and plain Dialogue 
concerning the Unlawfulness of playing at Cards or 
Tables," 1593, dedicated to " Master Lionel Maddison, 
Maior, the Aldermen his brethern, and the godly Bur- 
gesses of Newcastle-upon-Tine." The characters in- 
troduced by the author are a Professor and a Preacher. 
It appears that the Professor had read, in the " Com- 
mon-places" of Peter Martyr, a statement that dice- 
playing is unlawful, because it depends on chance. 
But as he was not convinced by this that playing at 
u tables " i.e., backgammon, trie-trie, &c, is unlawful 
(skill being then introduced), he craves the Preacher's 



24 CARD ESSAYS. 



opinion concerning the lawfulness of tables and cards. 
The Preacher, who, we may presume, represents the 
author's view, strongly objects to these games on 
moral grounds, and determines that all such games 
are unlawful in the following words : — " Lots are not 
to be used in Sport : but Games, consisting in Chance, 
as Dice, Cards, are Lots ; therefore, not to be used 
in Sport." He then refers to Joshua xviii. 10 ; 1 
Samuel xiv. 41 ; Jonah i. 7 ; Malachi i. 6, 7 ; and 
Hebrews vi. 16, in confirmation of his view. Joshua 
xviii., however, hardly supports the Preacher's doc- 
trine, as there lots are cast " before the Lord," i.e., 
with the sanction of the Most High, to determine the 
division of the land of several of the tribes. The 
Preacher gets out of this difficulty by admitting that 
Lots are sanctified to a peculiar use, viz. : to end con- 
troversies, by which he probably means to prevent 
quarrelling. But he carefully omits any reference to 
the casting of lots for the sacrifice (Lev. xvi. 8), where 
the plea of ending controversies will not help him. 

Finally, the Preacher condemns all games which 
depend on chance ; and he further refuses to counte- 
nance games at all, even if played for amusement 
only ; for, even granting that such games are lawful, 
he is of opinion that the desire of gain would soon 
creep in, according to the common saying, " Sine 
lucro friget ludus." 

A little later, 1610, William Ames, fellow of Christ l s 
College, preached at St. Mary's against cards and 
dice, as being forbidden by Scripture ; but his sermon 
gave much offence, and he was obliged to withdraw 
from the University to avoid expulsion. 

Gisbert Yoet also supported Balmford and Ames. 



CARD ESSAYS. 25 



As at this time party feeling ran strong between 
che Puritans and the High Churchmen, the views of 
the former could not be passed over in silence. Ac- 
cordingly in 1619 the learned Thomas Gataker pub- 
lished his well-known treatise ' * On the Nature and 
Use of Lots," in which he combats the opinions of 
Balmford and others. He classes Lots under three 
heads : — 1 . Lots which are commonly employed in 
serious affairs : 2. Lots which enter into games of 
chance ; and 3. Lots extraordinary or divinatory. 

Gataker considers Lots of the first kind to be inno- 
cent. The third class he condemns, except they are 
expressly required to be used by a revelation or 
Divine command. As to Lots which enter into games, 
with which we are principally concerned in this paper, 
Gataker thinks they were neither prohibited by the 
Scriptures nor evil in themselves. He candidly admits 
that they are liable to great abuse ; but, while he 
earnestly deprecates such abuse, he argues forcibly 
that it is not a necessary consequence of the employ- 
ment of Lots in games played for amusement. 

The controversy thus started raged for some time, 
both sides retaining their own views. A summary of 
the whole affair is given in the preface to the second 
edition of " Traite du Jeu, ou Von examine les princi- 
pales Questions de Droit naturel et de Morale, qui ont 
du Rapport a cette Matter e. Par Jean Barbeyrac, 
Professeur en Droit a Groningue" 1738. The first 
edition was published in 1710. It is said that Bar- 
beyrac was induced to write the work in consequence 
of being frequently appealed to by ladies who came 
to play cards with his mother-in law, with whom he 
resided. 



26 CARD ESSAYS. 



In his preface, Barbeyrac says: — "I am not sur- 
prised that Grataker should have been violently 
opposed when he maintained the lawfulness of lots, 
considering the date at which he wrote. It, however, 
appears strange to me that, in an age when so many 
philosophical and theological prejudices have been 
shaken off, people can still be found, who, regarding 
only the abuse which may arise out of the use of 
things which are harmless in themselves, condemn 
them as absolute evils, on frivolous or extremely 
doubtful grounds. Such condemnation is more likely 
to confirm abuse than to correct it * * * for, a 
favorite passion is apt to acquire fresh vigor If a 
pretext for its indulgence is discovered in the weak- 
ness of the arguments with which it is assailed. * * 
I greatly doubt whether a gamester was ever deterred 
from play by arguments brought forward to persuade 
him that his practices contravene the ordinances of 
Divine Providence." 

The following is a short analysis of Barbeyrac' s 
" solid reasons " for approving of play : — Man was not 
sent into the world by the Creator to pass his time in 
eating, drinking, and merry-making, but to be em- 
ployed in matters of utility and serious consideration. 
He has no right to waste his mental powers by remain- 
ing idle, nor in perpetual rounds of dissipation and 
amusement. He is bound to do some kind of work 
or other; and even if he has the means of living 
without labor, he still ought to find some creditable 
employment, to render himself a useful member of 
society. 

Man, however, was not created to labor incessantly 
without relaxation. The human machine soon gets 



CARD ESSAYS. 27 



out of order if worked too hard. The ancients said, 
"Take recreation in order to make progress with 
work," and " Rest is the seasoning of labor." The 
day and night mark out hours of labor and repose, 
and teach us that each is equally indispensable. 
Morality and Religion require us to take innocent 
pleasures ; and it is unjust to condemn those who do 
so discreetly. 

But there are people who fancy that use and abuse 
are inseparable ; and, forming mystical notions of 
virtue and piety, would have us reject all kinds of 
diversion, as being unworthy of reasoning creatures. 
Such persons aspire to a state of perfection unattain- 
able by human nature. I maintain, then, we may 
indulge in amusements that are themselves free from 
vice. If a person finds pleasure in playing at billiards, 
chess, cards, backgammon, or even with dice, why 
may he not amuse himself with them as well as in 
promenading, with music, in the chase, in fishing, in 
drawing, and in a thousand similar ways ? 

The question then remains, Is the game to be for 
nothing or for a stake of some value ? If there is no 
stake there can be no semblance of criminality ; and, 
if there is a stake, I do not see any evil, if we look at 
the matter in a proper light. 

Barbeyrac's arguments are so far good. But when 
he comes to the conclusion that games are not im- 
moral whether the stakes are large or small, he takes 
a view which is indefensible. He continues thus : — If 
I am at liberty to promise and give my property to 
whomsoever I choose, why may I not promise and 
give a certain sum in the event of another person 
proving more fortunate or more skilful than I am, 



28 CARD ESSAYS. 



with respect to the result of certain combinations 
previously agreed on? Why may not this person 
avail himself of skill or fortune on an issue about 
which we voluntarily contract an obligation ? Every 
IDerson is at liberty to cede property to another, the 
cession being dependent on fortuitous circumstances. 
Hence a person may fairly win if he himself risks the 
loss of as much as he can gain on the event. In fact, 
play is a land of contract ; and in every contract the 
will of the parties is the supreme law. 

Barbeyrac is here in error. Persons are restrained 
by law (which may be taken to represent the moral 
sense of the community), from ceding their property 
to others except for a consideration. People who 
enter into contracts that are contrary to the usages of 
society, or which are opposed to the laws of the coun- 
try in which they reside, are not compelled to fulfil 
these contracts. If the loser of a wager refuses to 
pay his losses, the law will not assist the winner to 
enforce payment. And very properly so ; for to hold 
the loser to the original bargain would, as a rule, in- 
flict a greater injury on society than allowing him 
to repudiate it. 

Barbeyrac' s work has been introduced out of its 
chronological order, as it completes the controversy 
on the nature and use of lots. 

We now go back to the beginning of the seven- 
teenth century. In 1615, a curious Rabbinical tract 
on gaming, called " Sur Mera" (Depart from Evil), 
was printed at Venice. The name of the author is 
not known. It is in the form of a dialogue between 
two young Jews — Medad, who maintains the lawful- 
ness of gaming, and Eldad, who is opposed to " play." 



CARD ESSAYS. 29 



Medad says that "play" is commendable, for it 
causes men to forget the cares of daily life. In com- 
merce, things pass from one to another by way of 
barter or sale, and why should not "play" be esti- 
mated the same as any other business, at which money 
is sometimes lost and sometimes gained. 

Eldad answers that traffic, or commerce, is pro- 
ductive of benefit to both the buyer and seller, on 
which Medad observes that merchants will buy and 
lock up corn or wine, and then look to Heaven for the 
signs of bad weather, and rejoice at the storm which 
destroys the vintage and crops of the year, because the 
holder will thus be enriched. He asks triumphantly, 
Is there any mutual benefit in this, when one man's 
profit depends on the injury of the rest of the 
world ? 

Eldad replies that this is not fair trade ; it is mere 
speculation, which is in fact gambling. 

In the remainder of the tract, Eldad endeavors to 
show that a gamester breaks all the ten command- 
ments, and that, according to the Talmud, he can 
neither be a judge nor a witness. Medad answers, 
and cites opposite passages. Then they recite poetry, 
in which the miseries and the pleasures of a game- 
ster's life are set forth by each ; and finally, of course, 
Medad yields, and admits that the cause he had 
maintained is bad. 

In the middle of the seventeenth century, Jeremy 
Taylor published his opinions on "play." In the 
words of Archdeacon Butler, Taylor was " one of the 
most truly pious and most profoundly learned prelates 
that ever adorned any age or country; nor," adds 
the Archdeacon, " do I think that the most rigid of 



30 CARD ESSAYS. 



our disciplinarians can produce the authority of a 
wiser or a better man." 

On the " Question on Graming, Whether or no the 
making and providing such instruments which usually 
minister to it, is by interpretation such an aid to the 
sin as to involve us in the guilt ? " the Bishop writes 
as follows : — 

' ' Many fierce declamations from ancient sanctity 
have been uttered against cards and dice by reason 
of the craft used in the game, and the consequent 
evils, as invented by the Devil. And, indeed, this is 
almost the whole state of the question, for there are 
so many evils in the use of these sports ; they are 
made trades of fraud and livelihood ; they are accom- 
panied so with drinking and swearing ; they are so 
scandalous by blasphemies and quarrels ; so infamous 
by misspending precious time, and the ruin of many 
families ; they so often make wise men fools and 
slaves of passion, that we may say of those who use 
them inordinately that they are in an ocean of mis- 
chief, and can hardly swim to shore without perishing. 
But that cards are themselves lawful, I do not know 
any reason to doubt. He can never be suspected in 
any criminal sense to tempt Divine Providence, who 
by contingent things recreates his labor, and, having 
acquired his refreshment, hath no other end to serve, 
and no desires to engage the Divine Providence to 
any other purpose. * * * A man may innocently, 
and to good purposes go to a tavern ; but they who 
frequent them have no excuse unless their innocent 
business does frequently engage, and their severe 
Religion bring them off safely. And so it is in these 
sports ; there is only one cause of using them, and 



CARD ESSAYS. 31 



that comes but seldom — the refreshment, I mean, of 
myself or my friend, to which I minister in justice or 
in charity. But when our sports come to that excess 
that we long and seek for opportunities ; when we 
tempt others, are weary of our business and not weary 
of our game ; when we sit up till midnight, and spend 
half days, and that often too ; then we have spoiled 
the sport — it is not a recreation but a sin. * * * 
He that means to make his games lawful must not 
play for money, but for refreshment. This, though 
few may believe, yet is the most considerable thing to 
be amended in the games of civil and sober persons. 
For the gaining of money can have no influence in 
the game to make it the more recreative, unless 
covetousness holds the box. * * * But when 
money is at stake, either the sum is trifling, or it is 
considerable. If trifling it can be of no purpose, 
unless to serve the ends of some little hospitable 
entertainment or love-feast, and then there is nothing 
amiss ; but if considerable, a wide door is opened to* 
temptation, and a man cannot be indifferent to win 
or lose a great sum of money, though he can easily 
pretend it. If a man be willing or indifferent to lose 
his own money, and not at all desirous to get another's, 
to what purpose is it that he plays for it ? If he be 
not indifferent, then he is covetous, or he is a fool ; 
he covets what is not his own, or unreasonably 
ventures that which is. If without the money he 
cannot mind his game, then the game is no divertise- 
ment, no recreation ;- but the money is all the sport, 
and therefore covetousness is all the design. But if 
he can be recreated by the game alone, the money 
does but change it from lawful to unlawful, and the 



32 CARD ESSAYS. 



man from being weary to become covetous ; and, 
from the trouble of labor or study, remove him to the 
worse trouble of fear, or anger, or impatient desires. 
Here begins the mischief; here men begin, for the 
money, to use vile arts ; here cards and dice begin to 
be diabolical, when players are witty to defraud and 
undo one another ; when estates are ventured and 
families are made sad and poor by a luckless chance. 
And what sport is it to me to lose my money, if it be 
at all valuable ? and if it be not, what is it to my 
game ? But sure the pleasure is in winning the 
money ; that certainly is it. But they who make a 
pastime of a neighbor's ruin, are the worst of men, 
said the comedy. But concerning the loss of our 
money, let a man pretend what he will, that he plays 
for no more than he is willing to lose, it is certain 
that we ought not to believe him ; for if that sum is 
so indifferent to him, why is he not easy to be tempted 
to give such a sum to the poor ? Whenever this is 
Vie case, he sins that games for money beyond an 
inconsiderable sum. Let the games be nothing, or 
almost nothing, and the cards or dice are innocent, 
and the game as innocent as push-pin. * * * In 
plays and games, as in other entertainments, we 
must neither do evil, nor seem to do evil ; we must 
not converse with evil persons, nor use our liberty to 
a brother's prejudice or grief. We must not do any- 
thing which he, with probability, or with innocent 
weakness, thinks to be amiss, until he is rightly in- 
structed ; but, where nothing of these things intervene, 
and nothing of the former evils is appendant, we 
may use our liberty with reason and sobriety ; and 
then, if this liberty can be so used, and such recrea- 



CARD ESSAYS. 33 



tions can be innocent, as they assuredly may, there 
is no further question but those trades which 
minister to these advertisements are innocent and 
lawful.' ' 

The whole of this passage is truly admirable ; but, 
if one may venture to criticise so eminent a writer, 
two objections may be made to it. The one is that 
there is a use in a stake, independently of winning or 
losing it, as will appear hereafter ; the other is, that 
the Bishop fails to perceive the distinction between 
the amount risked on each game, and the expectation 
(as it is termed in mathematics) of gain or loss on a 
series of games. Most people who play cards at all 
can afford to play sixpenny points at whist ; but it 
does not follow that they could afford to give half a 
crown to the poor at the conclusion of every rubber 
(about the average result), whether they won or lost 
it. The player expects to win some rubbers and to 
lose others ; and at the end of a considerable number 
of rubbers played, say during a twelvemonth, he ex- 
pects to be in or out of pocket at most a few pounds, 
which he can well afford, if he loses, to pay for his 
amusement. If he wins, and has any conscientious 
scruples about the lawfulness of retaining money won 
nt play (Luther was of opinion that it may be law- 
fully retained), he may, like Parson Dale in "My 
Novel," treat himself to the additional gratification 
of distributing it in charity. 

St. Francis de Sales, according to the ' ' Memoirs 
sur la Coitr de Louis XIV. et de la Rtgence " (Paris, 
1823), went so far as to cheat at cards, and excused 
himself for so doing, by saying that whatever he won 
was for the poor ! When the Archbishop of Aix 

3 



34 CARD ESSAYS. 



learnt that St. Francis was about to be canonized, 
he said he was delighted to hear of his good fortune, 
" 'quoiquHl il trichat au piquet.' 'Mais, Mon- 
sdqneurS lui dit-on, 'est-il possible qiCun Saint 
friponne au jeu f ' ' Ho,' repliqua V Archeveque, ' il 
disait, pour ses raisons, que ce quHl gagnait dtait 
pour les pauvres.' " St. Francis does not appear to 
have been very particular nor very consistent ; for 
later in life he condemned all games at cards as being 
" simply and naturally bad and reprehensible. " 

John Locke, in his Treatise on " Education," 1693, 
says — " As to cards and dice, I think the safest and 
best way is never to learn any play upon them, and 
so to be incapacitated for those dangerous tempta- 
tions and incroaching wasters of useful time." 

Robert Nelson, a learned and pious English gentle- 
man, author of "A Companion for the Fasts and 
Festivals of the Church of England," and of the 
''Practice of true Devotion," 1708, says in the latter 
work, " Sober persons do not make a business of 
what they should use as a diversion." Hence he 
considers there is no objection to cards played for 
amusement. 

Addison, however, about the same time (1711), in 
X o. 93 of the Spectator, on " Proper Methods of Em- 
ploying Time," held the opposite view. He says, " I 
must confess I think it is below reasonable creatures 
to be altogether conversant in such diversions as are 
merely innocent, and have nothing else to recom- 
mend them, but that there is no hurt in them. 
Whether any kind of gaming has even this much to 
say for itself, I shall not determine ; but I think 
it very wonderful to see persons of the best sense 



CARD ESSAYS. 35 



passing away a dozen hours together in shuffling and 
dividing a pack of cards, with no other conversation 
but what is made up of a few game phrases, and no 
other ideas but those of black or red spots ranged to- 
gether in different figures. Would not a man laugh 
to hear one of this species complaining that life is 
short ?" 

Jeremy Collier, in his " Essay on Gaming." 1713, 
which takes the form of a dialogue between Dolo- 
medes and Callimachus (the author), expresses his 
opinions (which are here condensed) as follows : — 

Deep play sets the spirits on float, strikes the mind 
strongly into the face, and discovers a man's weak- 
ness very remarkably. You may see the passions 
come up with the dice, and ebb and flow with the 
fortune of the game, The sentence for execution is 
not received with more concern than the unlucky 
appearance of a cast or a card. Some people are miser- 
ably ruffled, and distressed to an agony ; others are 
no less foolishly pleased, and so bring their covetous 
humor into view. Why then resign repose of mind 
and credit of temper to the mercy of chance ? 

Bolomedes then points out that some people play 
without the least ruffle, and lose great sums with de- 
cency and indifference. 

Callimachus replies this is merely a copy of the 
countenance, things being not so smooth within as 
without. The anguish is concealed. But if the 
players are really unconcerned, and a heavy blow 
brings no smart, the case is worse. Snch stoicism is 
the speediest dispatch to beggary. It makes the man 
foolhardy and renew the combat. But it is rarely 
met with. When misfortune strikes home, the tern- 



86 CARD ESSAYS. 



per generally goes with the money, according to the 
proverb, " Qui perd le sien, perd le sens." One loss 
makes people desperate, and leads to another ; the 
head grows misty with ill luck, and the man becomes 
an easier conquest. When your bubbles are going 
down the hill, you lend them a push, though their 
bones are broken at the bottom. 

When things, with a promising face, sicken, the 
spirits of your gaming sparks are up immediately ; 
they are a storm at the first blast, the train takes fire 
like gunpowder. Then, nothing is more common 
than oaths and execrable language. Instead of 
blaming their own rashness, they curse their stars, 
and rage against their fate, and these paroxysms 
sometimes run so high, you would think the Devil 
had seized the organs of speech ; and these hideous 
sallies are sometimes carried on to quarrelling and' 
murder. The hazards of play are frightful ; a box 
and dice are terrible artillery. 

In the " Reminiscences' ' of the Rev. R. Polwhele, 
1773, occurs a letter from Augustus Toplady, a cler- 
gyman and a high Calvinist, approving of cards and 
other games, and stating his opinion that the clergy 
may innocently indulge in various recreations. He 
says — " I do not think that honest Martin Luther 
committed sin by playing at Backgammon for an 
hour or two after dinner, in order, by unbending his 
mind, to promote digestion. 

" I cannot blame the holy martyr, Bishop Ridley, 
for frequently playing at Tennis before he became a 
prelate, nor for playing at the more serious game of 
Chess twice a day, after he was made a bishop. 

" As little do I find fault with another of our most 



CARD ESSAYS. 37 



exemplary martyrs, the learned and devout Mr. Arch- 
deacon Philpot, who has left it on record, as a brand 
on Pelagians of that age, that ' they looked on hon- 
este pastyme as a sinne ; ' and had the impudence to ' 
call him an Antinomian and a loose moralist, be- 
cause he now and then relaxed his bow with * hun- 
tynge, shootynge, bowlynge, and such like.' 

" Nor can I set down pious Bishop Latimer for 
such an enemy to holiness of life, on account of his 
saying that hunting is a good exercise for men of 
rank, and that shooting is as lawful an amusement 
for persons of inferior class. 

" I have not a whit the worse opinion of the emi- 
nent and profound Mr. Thomas Grataker, for the 
Treatise which he professedly wrote to prove the law- 
fulness of card playing, under the due restrictions 
and limitations. 

£ $ $1 $ $ 

" I cannot condemn the Vicar of Broad Hembury 
[i.e., himself] for relaxing himself now and then 
among a few select friends with a rubber of sixpenny 
Whist, a pool of penny Quadrille, or a few rounds of 
twopenny Pope- Joan. To my certain knowledge, 
the said Vicar has been cured of headache by one or 
other of those games, after spending eight, ten or 
twelve, and sometimes sixteen hours in his study. 
Nor will he ask any man's leave for so unbending 
himself, — because another person's conscience is no 
rule to his, any more than another person's stature 
or complexion." 

Dr. Johnson (" Tour to the Hebrides," 1785) re- 
gretted he had not learnt to play at cards, giving as 
his reason, " It is very useful in life ; it generates kind- 



38 CARD ESSAYS. 



ness and consolidates society.' ' This reminds one of 
Talleyrand's mot respecting Whist, "Vous ne savez 
pas done le Whiste,- jeune homme. Quelle triste 
vieillesse vous vous preparez ! " 

John Wilson, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the 
University of Edinburgh, was in favor of card games, 
if we may assume that he expresses his own senti- 
ments in the Nodes Ambrosiance, 1826. The dialogue 
on gaming, between himself and the Ettrick Shep- 
herd, may thus be summed up : — 

There are families, especially austere Calvinists 
who abhor cards, and their principles ought to be 
respected. Nevertheless, old people, a little dim-eyed 
or so, might do much worse than while away an occa- 
sional evening at an innocent and cheerful game at 
cards. It is true that cards are not absolutely ne- 
cessary, but unless people are greedy and play for the 
pool, there is no objection to them. Indeed, among 
the leisured classes, card-playing in moderation is 
harmless. But as for "Hells" (or gaming-houses), 
they cannot be too severely condemned. 

William Andrew Chatto, discussing the morality 
of card-playing in his "Facts and Speculations on 
Playing-Cards," 1848, says— "Most persons who play 
for high stakes, either at games of pure chance, or of 
chance and skill combined, make more or less a 
traffic of their amusement ; and risk their own money 
from a desire of winning that of another. In all such 
cases gaming is a positive evil to society, and is utterly 
inexcusable, much less justifiable, on any grounds 
whatever ; and all who thus venture large sums may 
be justly required to show by what right they possess 
them. When a fool or a knave is thus stripped of a 



CARD ESSAYS. 39 



large property, his loss is a matter of small import 
to society ; the true evil is, that so large a portion of 
national wealth, created by the industry of others, 
should be at the disposal of such a character, and 
should be allowed to pass, on such a contract, to an- 
other even more worthless than himself. This objec- 
tion has not been urged in any of the numerous ser- 
mons and essays that have been published against 
gaming ; the authors of which generally, instead of 
showing that society has both the power and the 
right to correct such abuses, by depriving the offend- 
ing parties of the means of continuing them, have 
contented themselves with declamations on the wick- 
edness of the pursuit, and with vain appeals to the 
conscience of inveterate gamesters : while they whistle 
to the deaf adder, they never seem to suspect that it 
may be easily dispatched with a stick." 

While some few authorities condemn games of all 
kinds, the great majority approve of games played in 
moderation, and even for a small stake, if the chief 
idea of the players is mental or bodily refreshment. 
Only one writer is bold enough not to denounce 
unlimited stakes, and he has already been dealt with. 

The great difficulty seems to be this : — If the game 
in itself is sufficiently interesting to keep the players 
pleasantly occupied, and to afford materials for inno- 
cent and healthy enjoyment, why play for a stake at 
all? 

None of the quoted writers have answered this 
question. Mr. "R-i chard A. Proctor, in The Echo of 
July 17, 1878, says, " I cannot see the sense of play- 
ing for insignificant stakes. It is only when the 
stakes ar* large enough to be more than the player 



40 CARD ESSAYS. 



can afford than any excitement can be added to the 
pleasure which a good game like Whist affords in 
itself. And when once the stakes are allowed to 
attain such an amount, the play becomes gambling." 

Mr. Proctor thinks the reason may be that it is 
customary to play for something, and that conse- 
quently people must either fall in with the custom 
or abstain from playing. 

This, however, is only a statement of the fact, not 
an explanation of it. Inasmuch as games are almost 
invariably played for a stake, and that by persons 
who have no desire of gain, there must be a reason 
for the custom. 

The explanation appears to be this. The use of a 
small stake is to define the interest. It is not the 
amount dependent on the family rubber or friendly 
game at billiards that increases the pleasure of the 
players ; indeed many people who play Whist for 
sixpenny points or back themselves for a shilling at 
billiards would feel very uncomfortable, and have 
their pleasure diminished, if a large sum hung on the 
result. But there is just the difference between play- 
ing for something or for nothing that there is between 
purpose and no purpose. If we walk or ride we do 
not go round and round in a circle. We go out if 
possible with a purpose, to visit some person or place, 
We have perhaps no particular reason to take one 
direction rather than another ; but we feel more in- 
terest in our walk or ride if we have a definite object 
in view. 

Then comes the point, What do you mean by a 
small stake ? Where does defining interest end and 
gambling begin ? 



CARD ESSAYS. 41 



Each individual must decide this for himself. It 
depends mainly on the means of the players. As 
long as it is a matter of indifference to those engaged 
whether they win or lose the amount staked, having 
regard also to their expectation on a series, so long 
are they without the pale of gambling. The mo- 
ment any anxiety is felt as to the fate of the sum 
depending on the result, the sooner the stakes are 
reduced the better. It is clear that if half-starved 
street Arabs toss for coppers they are gambling. It 
is equally clear that if two well-to-do friends toss 
which of them shall pay for a split brandy-and-soda, 
they are not gambling. To pursue this still further ; 
if a clerk earning a hundred a year backs his fancy 
for the Derby for ten pounds, he is gambling ; but if 
a wealthy owner of race horses puts the same on his 
favorite two-year-old, he is not gambling. To the 
one ten pounds is an object ; to the other it is a mere 
trifle. 

The good sense of the community generally fixes 
the stakes at a reasonable sum, in accordance with 
the view just propounded. Thus, at Whist, the do- 
mestic rubber may be played for postage-stamps or 
for silver three-pennies ; in general society, shillings, 
with perhaps an extra half-crown on the rubber, are 
common enough \ while at the Clubs, where money 
flows more easily, half-crown or crown points are the 
ruling prices. At crack Clubs, where many of the 
members are men of wealth, higher points are, of 
course, to be met with. 

No doubt there is a temptation to men of moderate 
income to play high when they have the entree into 
circles where money is played for. For example : 1 >e 



42 ■ CARD ESSAYS. 



Jones is a man of family, and as such a member of 
the Coronet Club where the usual stakes are twos 
and tens. But De Jones is a younger son, and his 
income may be reckoned on three fingers. If De 
Jones is so fond of a rubber that he must wander into 
the card-room of the Coronet, he ought to retire from 
the club and join another club where the points are 
Lower. His position, however, as a tempted man, is 
not peculiar; there are temptations in every path 
of life as well as at the card-table. There is the 
temptation to the merchant to trade beyond his 
capital ; to the banker or broker to speculate in 
various securities ; to the man of property to live 
expensively and beyond his income. But no one will 
argue hence that commercial pursuits or good invest- 
ments, or the possession of private means, are in them- 
selves evils ; properly employed, they are blessings. 
And thus we return to the point from which we set 
out, viz. : that card-playing, in common with almost all 
occupations and amusements, may be wisely and 
honestly used, or foolishly and wickedly abused. 



CARD ESSAYS. 43 



ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF 
CARDS AND CARD-GAMES. 



"Di quelle carte, e di quel mazzo strano, 
L'origine cercando, e il primo arcane" 
— II Gioco delle Carte, 

Bettlnelli, Poema, Canto 1. 

ki II est impossible de dire, prenant un jeu quelconque, qu'il a ete 
invente" en telle ann^e. par un tel. C'est tantot l'un et tantot 1 'autre 
qui s'avise a j outer quelques regies a un vieux jeu, d'en changer le 
nom ; des amis adoptent ; quelques soci^tes a la suite, et voila une 
invention." — Les Cartes ajouer, Paul Boiteau D'Ambly. 

u 'Spect I growed."— Topsy, in Uncle Tom's Cabin. 



According to the best authorities there is no trust- 
worthy evidence of the existence of playing-cards 
more than five hundred years ago. Some writers 
have attempted to show that playing-cards were 
anciently known in India and China, whence they 
were imported to Europe ; but Merlin and Willshire, 
the most recent authors on the History of Playing- 
Cards, are of opinion that the presence of cards in 
Europe is due to an original invention, and not to 
importation. 

The theory of the oriental origin of cards rests 
mainly on the following grounds : — 



44 CARD ESSAYS. 



1. That cards were known among the Arabs, Sara- 
cens, or Moors, who introduced them into Europe by- 
way of Spain. Covelluzzo, who wrote about the end 
of the fifteenth century, is reported by Feliciano 
Bussi (Istoria della Cittd di Viterbo, History of the 
City of Viterbo, Roma, 1743) to have stated as follows : 
— " Anno 1379, fu recato in Viterbo il gioco delle 
Carti, che venne de Beracenia e chiamasi tra loro 
Naib," that is, "In the year 1379, was brought into 
Viterbo the game of Cards, which comes from the 
country of the Saracens, and is with them called 
Naib" The assertion of the Saracenic origin of 
cards has no value beyond that of the personal 
opinion of Covelluzzo, or of an opinion prevalent 
when he wrote. Covelluzzo was not contemporaneous 
with the date mentioned, for his Chronicle terminates 
in 1480, a century later than the date he gives. 
Moreover, Covelluzzo, though followed and quoted 
by Bussi, was by him regarded as a credulous person. 

2. That cards made their way into Europe from 
India, by means of the Gypsies, who carried cards 
with them for the purpose of divination and fortune- 
telling, and that the Moors obtained cards from the 
Gypsies. 

The answer to this supposition is that the Gypsies 
(whether they are of Egyptian origin, or whether 
they sprung from the Suders of Hindustan who 
migrated at the period of Timur Beg) did not appear 
in Europe before 1417, when cards had been in use 
for some time. 

3. That cards had their source in Egypt. 

Those who adopt this view recognize in Tarots 
cards the pages of a hieroglyphic book, containing 



CARD ESSAYS. 45 



the principles of the mystic philosophy of the Egyp- 
tians in a series of symbols and emblematic figures. 
But modern criticism has shown that this theory, 
however ingenious, is of too recondite and shadowy a 
character to admit of satisfactory argument. 

4. That cards were invented by the Chinese. The 
principal evidence in favor of this doctrine is con- 
tained in the Chinese dictionary Ching-tsze-tung, 
compiled byEul-koung, and first published A. D. 1673. 
It is there stated that the cards now known in China 
as Teen-tsze-pae, or dotted cards, were invented in 
the reign of Seun-ho, 1120. According to tradition 
they were devised for the amusement of Seun-ho's 
numerous concubines. 

Even granting that cards had an early and separate 
birth in the Celestial Empire, Europe no more derived 
her cards from China, than she did her gunpowder, 
printing, and engraving, all of which are considered 
by some to have been originally Chinese inventions. 

5. That cards bear an analogy and relation to 
Chess, which is of Eastern, probably Hindustani, 
origin. 

These analogies, when examined, are insufficient to 
establish a common origin. The game of TcJiaturanga 
(the four angas or members of an army), or Tchaturaji 
(the four Rajahs or Kings), which is a kind of Chess, 
was played by four persons, with four suits or sets of 
men. The moves were determined by means of dice, 
thus making the game, &< at most card-games, a com- 
pound one of chance and skill. But here the analogy 
ends ; and the connection, if any, is rather with 
Backgammon than with cards. 

G. Lastly, that certain Indian cards, and the games 



46 CARD ESSAYS. 



played with them, present analogies with European 
cards and card-games. This is particularly the case 
with the game of cards known as Grhendifeh . The 
marks of the suits in the cards used, and also the 
rules of the game, have incontestable relations with 
those of the Minchiate of Florence, and Ombre of 
Spain. Grhendifeh is played with a pack of ninety- 
six cards, of eight suits, containing twelve pieces each. 
Some of the suits, viz. : those of money and swords, 
resemble the suits of European cards. In the division 
of the Hindustani suits into red and white, we have 
an analogy with the European red and black. In 
the Hindustani game there are eight suits and six or 
three players ; in the European game of Ombre four 
suits and three players. There are also said to be 
other points of similarity between Minchiate, Ombre, 
and Ghendifeh. 

But, admitting so great a similarity that one game 
may fairly be assumed to have been derived from the 
the other, the inference might be that the Moham- 
medans of India imitated, in their game, the game of 
Europe. For the peculiarities which link the Eu- 
ropean to the Indian game existed in the former in 
the year 1488, when cards had been known in Europe 
for at least a century; and Europe had but little 
communication with India until about 1494. It 
must be admitted that this argument is not conclusive, 
as occasional intercourse would be sufficient to in- 
troduce cards. 

M. Merlin, the juror who prepared the report on 
the playing cards sent to the Paris Exhibition of 1855, 
says that " not any historic document, monument, 
nor quotation from Eastern writers, can be adduced 



CARD ESSAYS. 47 



in support of the theory that cards had either an 
Arabian or Indian origin," and that " an attentive 
study of the various theories of the Oriental origin of 
cards will show they have all been the results of 
imagination, and that the conjectures on which they 
have been based will not bear serious examination." 

It is not necessary here to endorse in its entirety 
such a sweeping conclusion. The arguments pro 
,and con may be found by those interested in the 
subject in the books specified at the end of this 
Essay. Enough has been said to justify us in as- 
suming the great probability of the European origin 
of cards, and consequently of the games played with 
them. 

Starting then in Europe, the question has to be 
answered, How, when, and where in Europe did cards 
and the games played with them originate ? This 
question has exercised many learned men, and it has 
never been satisfactorily answered. 

The evidence as to the non-existence of playing- 
cards prior to the middle of the fourteenth century, 
is of course negative. No allusion to cards is to be 
found in the MS. of Hugo von Trymberg (second half 
of thirteenth and beginning of fourteenth centuries), 
nor in that of Petrarch (first half of fourteenth cen- 
tury), nor in Chaucer (second half of fourteenth cen- 
tury) though in all these writings gambling games 
and implements are mentioned. 

In the Escurial library there is a manuscript com- 
posed by the order of Don Alphonso the Wise, dated 
1321, on the rules of chess and dice. It does not con- 
tain a word about cards. 

To come to positive evidence. The earliest date to 



48 CARD ESSAYS. 



which it has been proposed to assign the mention of 
cards is 1278 ; but this and all others up to 1375, have 
been shown by the fierce light of modern criticism 
either not to refer to cards, or to be interpolations. 
The earliest direct mention of cards that may be 
accepted without much demur is that in the Chronicle 
of Covelluzzo already referred to. The pflicht-buch of 
Nurnberg (1380-84) is stated by some authorities to 
contain references to cards. But the earliest date, 
which has never been disputed, and from which the 
positive history of playing-cards begins is the one 
discovered by Pere Menestrier in the registers of the 
Chambres des Comptes of Charles VI. of France, the 
account being that of Charles Poup$rt, the royal 
Treasurer. In the account commencing 1st February, 
1392, is the following entry: — "Donne a Jacquemin 
Grringonneur, peintre, pour trois jeux de cartes a or, 
et a diver ses. couleurs, ornis de plusieurs devises, 
pour porter devant le Seigneur Roi, pour son Abatement 
LVI sols Parisis" That is, " Given to Jacquemin 
Grringonneur, painter, for three packs of cards ir. 
gold and various colors, and ornamented with 
several devices, to carry before the Lord our King, 
for his amusement, fifty-six sols of Paris." 

The conclusion drawn from this passage, that card> 
were invented for the use of Charles VI. is unwar- 
rantable ; and so the sneer of Malkin, that it is no 
very favorable specimen of our wisdom to have uni- 
versally adopted an amusement invented for a fool, 
is bereft of its sting. A careful examination of the 
wording shows that the payment was for painting 
not for inventing cards. The general tenor of the 
entry, the simplicity with which it is made, the ab- 



CARD ESSAYS. 



sence of any allusion to novelty in the conception, 
all point to the conclusion that playing-cards were 
already known ; and that these cards were executed 
to special order, with more elaborate gilding and 
coloring than usual, as would probably be the case 
with cards intended for the personal use of royalty. 

There are seventeen pieces in the National Library, 
Paris, which are erroneously called the Gringonneur 
or Charles VI. cards of 1392. They are in reality fine 
Venetian tarots of the fifteenth century, in the opin- 
ion of some judges not earlier than 1425. 

After 1392, many and certain references to playing- 
cards are to be met with. The general conclusion 
arrived at, subject to modification with the extension 
of our present knowledge, is, therefore, that playing- 
cards were known about the middle of the fourteenth 
century, and that they originated in Europe. 

In the opinion of the latest authorities on the sub- 
ject, there existed, for a considerable period before 
the invention of playing-cards, a series of emblematic 
pictures called naibis, the raison d'etre of which is 
not known with any certainty, but which are sup- 
posed to have been used either for simple amusement 
and instruction or for the purposes of divination and 
sortilege. And, it is further supposed, that about 
the end of the fourteenth century some inventive 
genius, probably Venetian, selected a certain number 
of these emblematic naibis, and, by adding to them 
a series of numeral cards, converted them into imple- 
ments by which the excitement of chance and the 
interest of gain might be added to or might super- 
sede the amusement afforded by the original naibis. 

There is much conjecture in this theorv, — but as it 
4 



50 CARD ESSAYS. 



is the latest, and is supported by good authority, it 
may pass muster until some better explanation is 
offered. 

Towards the end of the fourteenth century it is said 
that these mixed naibis and numerals (called tarots) 
were produced in Italy, Venice (or possibly Florence) 
being assumed as the city of their first appearance. 
The pack consisted of seventy-eight cards. Twenty- 
two were emblematic pieces, some of the original 
naibis being retained, and others of amoral character 
(bearing directly on the dangers and consequences of 
gambling) being introduced. Fifty-six were numeral 
pieces, divided into four suits of fourteen cards each, 
each suit consisting of ten pip cards, numbered from 
one to ten, and of four picture or coat cards (after- 
wards corrupted into court cards), viz.: — King, queen, 
cavalier, and man-servant. From Italy playing- 
cards spread rapidly through Europe, but with va- 
rious modifications. 

The number of cards in the pack was frequently 
altered, and ere long the emblematic series was with- 
drawn altogether, except where it was required for 
the old Tarots game, which still lingers in some parts 
of Europe. 

The marks of the suits have been the subject of 
much curious speculation. The received notion about 
them is that they were originally emblematic, and 
that they represented symbolically two theologic and 
two cardinal virtues. The earliest marks were cups, 
representing Faith ; money for Charity ; swords for 
Justice ; and clubs for Fortitude. 

There are other theories respecting the meaning of 
the marks of the suits ; but it seems not improbable 



CARD ESSAYS. 51 



that they meant nothing at all, and were simply 
chosen from a variety of common objects, as being 
distinct, well known, and intelligible to all. But 
whether emblematic or not they were very soon 
changed when cards passed the Italian border. Each 
nation, except the Spaniards who retained the old 
signs, seemed to have its own idea as to the marks it 
preferred for its cards. The Germans at a very early 
period employed hearts, bells, leaves and acorns. 
About the second quarter of the fifteenth century the 
French introduced what we choose to call spades, 
hearts, clubs and diamonds, and these marks were 
adopted in England. 

The meaning of the words spades and clubs, and 
their application to the symbols to which they cor- 
respond, have exercised the ingenuity of many wri- 
ters ; the following explanation seems to be the most 
probable. The spade symbol is the griin or leaf of 
the German marks, the leaf of the wild plum. In 
adopting it, the French called it pique, as is believed 
from a fancied resemblance to the head of a pike. 
When we took it from the French, we renamed it 
spade, borrowing the French symbol and the Italian 
name for the suit of swords (spade). The English club 
is remarkably like the German acorn, as any one may 
see who will compare the acorn on the old German 
cards with the trefle of old French ones. As drawn 
on modern cards, the symbol has the shape of a tre- 
foil leaf, and hence the French name. Here again 
the English copied the French symbol, and gave it 
an Italian name, only Anglicizing it. The name of 
the Italian suit is bastoni (batons or clubs). The 
Italian symbol is precisely the same in appearance as 



52 



CARD ESSAYS. 



the club with which Jack the Giant-Killer is armed 
in children's story books. The names of the suits in 
early cards may thus be arranged with regard to 
their countries: — 



Italian . 


. Coppe. 


Spade. 


Bastoni. 


Danari. 




. Cups. 


Swords. 


Batons. 


Money. 


Spanish . 


. Gopas. 


Espadas. 


Bastos. 


Oros or Dineros. 


German . 


Hertz en. 


Griin. 


Eicheln. 


Schellen. 




. Hearts. 


Leaves. 


Acorns. 


Bells. 


French . 


. CcBurs. 


Piques. 


Trefles. 


Carreaux. 


English . 


Hearts. 


Spades. 


Clubs. 


Diamonds. 



The precise nature of the earliest games played is 
not known with any certainty. In the game of 
Tarocchi, according to the oldest accounts, three prin- 
cipal elements may be perceived. 1. The superiority 
of the emblematic cards to those of other suits. This 
would naturally suggest itself in consequence of 
their being picture cards, and therefore more striking 
to the eye than numerals. They soon acquired a 
distinctive name, i trionfi (cards of triumph, or 
trumps) or atutti (above all, afterwards in French, 
atouts). 2. The winning of one card by another of 
superior numerical value, or trick-making. 3. Obliga- 
tion to follow suit and to win the cards previously 
played i.e., to take the trick, if able. 

In other Tarots games such as Minchiate, se- 
quences become a scoring element, i.e., the score is 
affected by certain combinations of cards herd in 
hand, irrespective of play. This feature, varied in- 
definitely, afterwards appears in many games of skill, 
as in scores for point, quart orze. and special rewards 
for certain privileged cards. 

When the tarots or emblematic cards were rejected, 



CARD ESSAYS. 53 



trumps were determined by making one suit superior 
to the others. As the cards varied so did the games. 
In games of pure chance, such as Lansquenet, the 
results depend simply on the order in which the cards 
are dealt ; and this principle lies at the root of all 
card-games of chance to the present day. 

Later card-games of skill are all based on omission 
or variation of some of the features already pointed 
out, with the addition of other insignificant subsidi- 
ary ones too numerous to specify. The mode of pro- 
ducing excitement was constantly varied by the in- 
troduction of different methods of staking. At first 
the mode was to make a pool by subscription among 
the players. Then betting was added, in the form of 
vying on or backing the hands ; and a necessary ac- 
companiment of this was to permit discarding, or 
changing worthless cards in hand for undealt cards, 
in hope of increasing the value of the hand betted 
upon, and also to allow the players to play or pass 
as they pleased, generally on pain, if they passed, of 
forfeiting the sum already staked. Then, as a varia- 
tion, the amount to be won or lost was made indefi- 
nite, as at games where points are played for. In 
short, the greatest ingenuity has been exercised in 
order to add to the excitement of play by introducing 
variety, and sometimes senseless variety. A curious 
instance of this, with regard to trick-making games, 
was first pointed out by Dr. Pole. When a new 
game was invented, the order of the cards seems to 
have been varied, with the remarkable consequence 
that, in no game where trick-making is a feature 
does the natural order of the cards prevail. To quote 
Dr. Pole "On the Philosophy of Games at Cards " 



54 CARD ESSAYS. 



{The Field, Dec. 20, 1873) :— -" The natural order of 
the cards is the king, highest, then the queen, knave, 
ten, nine, and so on down to the ace, which is natu- 
rally the lowest of all ; but oddly enough, there is 
not, so far as we recollect, a single game where cards 
compete with each other in trick-making, in which 
this natural order is preserved. In whist, as we know, 
the lowest card for playing is put in the highest posi- 
tion, while for cutting it remains the lowest. In 
piquet it is highest both for cutting and playing. In 
ecarte the ace is put between the knave and the ten. 
In bezique and sixty-six the ten ranks between the 
ace and the king. In put and calabrasella the three 
is the best card ; in euchre the knave is best in trumps, 
the ace in other suits ; while in spoil-five the rank 
and order of the different cards in black and red 
suits, and in trump and plain suits, is absurdly 
complex, the five being the best trump, then the 
ace of hearts whatever suit is trumps, and so on. 
Now, the philosophy of this feature is well worth 
study. Every reflecting person must be aware that 
all these distinctions are mere shams \ the playing of 
the games would be precisely the same without the 
changes in the rank of the cards ; but these changes 
are so firmly rooted in the constitution of the several 
games, that it would be impossible to eradicate them. 
Suppose, for example, that Mr. Clay, when writing 
his work on whist, had begun by saying that it was 
a puerile absurdity to make the lowest ra:d capture 
the highest, and had proposed to revert to the natural 
rank of the cards, basing all his directions and illus- 
trations on that plan. He would have had reason 
on his side ; but he would simply have been treated 



CARD ESSAYS. 55 



by the whist world as a madman, and his book would 
have shared the fate of De La Rue's memorable 
attempt to make the kings, queens, and knaves look 
like reasonable figures — it would have been igno- 
miniously banished from all decent whist society. 
What is the explanation of this ? " 

Assuming that the original game of all was the 
Tarocchi of Venice, played with seventy-eight cards 
(fifty-six numerals and twenty-two tarots), the first 
alteration was probably made by the Florentines, 
who increased the emblematic pieces to forty-one, 
and invented the game of Minchiate with ninety- 
seven cards. After this all the changes in the pack 
were in the direction of reduction, it being probably 
found that packs consisting of so many cards were 
awkward to handle. Accordingly, a little later, the 
Bolognese diminished the pack to sixty-two (twenty- 
two tarots and forty numerals) the two, three, four 
and five of each suit being rejected. The game 
played with these cards was called Tarocchino . And 
the Venetians themselves, at a very early period, 
abolished all the true tarots and suppressed the three, 
four, rive, and six of each suit (the pack now consist- 
ing of forty cards), and termed the game played with 
these packs Trappola. 

When cards travelled through Europe, the tarots 
cards found comparatively but little £avc r, th< ugh 
to this day tarots cards may be procured in Italy and 
in the south of France. Trappola cards [Drapulir 
Karten) are also still published at Vienna. But the 
vast majority of packs soon came to consist of fifty- 
two numeral cards, one f the four coat cards being 
removed from each suit. It seems not unlikely that 



56 CARD ASSAYS. 



on the loss of one of the pictures the ace was raised 
to its present rank, instead of the ten, in order to 
preserve the original number of cards of superior dig- 
nity. If so, this accounts for the lowest card rank- 
ing as the highest in so many games. At all events, 
this suggestion is thrown out as a possible answer to 
Dr. Pole's question. 

With these fifty-two cards, some being occasionally 
suppressed, various countries invented, in the sense 
explained in the quotation from Paul Boiteau which 
heads this essay, and established their several games. 
No nations seemed content to adopt en-bloc any game, 
as it travelled to them. Though the varieties intro- 
duced were marvellously ingenious and numerous, 
the old fundamental elements were maintained, in 
most instances so closely that there is no great diffi- 
culty in tracing the pedigrees of the principal modern 
games, owing to their easily recognized family like- 
nesses to older ones. 

In order to do this it will be desirable to start with 
the early games, and to trace their successive develop- 
ments until the games now in vogue are reached. 

In a Canzone of Lorenzo de Medici, Flush (il Frusso) 
and Bassett are referred to. The date of the " Canti 
Carnascialeschi" in which the Canzone appears is 
doubtful ; but it is among the writer's early composi- 
tions. He died in 1492. 

It may be assumed from the name il Frusso, that 
a flush (cards of the same suit) was one of the objects, 
or the principal object striven after by the players. 
No doubt this game was an early edition of Primero. 
Baretti's Italian Dictionary (Florence,, 1832), under 
Frusso says, " What we now call Primiera and the 



CARD ESSAYS. 57 



English Primero." It should rather be the Spanish, 
for Primero is only the Spanish form of the Italian 
Primiera. At Primiera a flush is the most important 
hand. Primero is undoubtedly a very old game, of 
either Italian or Spanish origin. It is mentioned by 
Berni (Capitolo del Gioco della Primiera, 1526) with 
Bassetta, il Frusso, Tarocchi, Sminchiate, and other 
games. Seymour (Compleat Gramester, 1734) says 
Ombre is an improvement of Primero " formerly in 
great Vogue among the Spaniards ." But Primero 
has no relation to Ombre, and it seems more likely 
that the Spaniards derived Primero from the Italian 
Frusso or Primiera, than the reverse. Primero is sup- 
posed by some to have been the oldest game played 
with numeral cards ; but it is now pretty well accer- 
tained that Trappola was earlier, and so also prob- 
ably were Flush and Bassett, as the simpler games 
would naturally precede the more complex ones. 

Primero was played in various ways and with packs 
of different degrees of completeness. Thus in Florence 
the sevens, eights, and nines, were removed from the 
pack ; in Rome they were kept. 

The principal features of the game (as nearly as can 
be made out from old descriptions, which are very 
obscure), were as follows : — Four cards were dealt to 
each player, and the rest was made or set at the second 
card. This probably means that, when two cards 
had been dealt, a pool was formed, and then the 
other two cards were dealt. The first player might 
either stand or pass. If he passed, he was at liberty 
to discard one or two of his cards, and so on with the 
others. 

Any player having a good hand vyed on it, i.e., 



58 CARD ESSAYS. 



raised the stakes, and finally the hands were shown. 
The principal hands were 1 flush, 2 prime, 3 point. 
The highest flush was the best, then the highest prime 
(all four cards held being of different suits) ; and if 
there was no flush or prime, the highest point won. 
The point was thus reckoned ; seven (best card) 
counted for 21 ; six for 18 ; five for 15 ; four for 14 ; 
three for 13 ; two for 12 ; ace for 16 ; coat cards, 10 
each. Also, if agreed, quinola, knave of hearts, might 
be made any card or suit. Another variation, prob- 
ably of later introduction, was that four cards of a 
sort, as four sevens, were superior to a flush. 

Primera was played also in France. It is included 
by Rabelais in the list of games that Grargantua play- 
ed, under the name of la Prime. The celebrated his- 
tory was finished about 1545 ; but a portion of it was 
published earlier. x 

In France, the game of Prime, elaborated, appears 
to have been played under the name of VAmMgu ou le 
MesU. La Maison des Jeux Acadtmiques (Paris, 1665) 
says," Le MesU s' appelle -tant parce quHl tient en 
effet quelque chose de tous lesautres, et qu'enlevoyant 
jouer on ne saurait discerner si c'est prime ou autre 
semblable" In later editions of the Academy it is called 
VAmMgu or the Banquet (literally a banquet of meat 
and fruit both together — repas ou Von sert en meme 
temps la viande et le fruit), and is stated to be an 
assemblage of different sorts of games. It was played 
with forty cards, all the figured cards being thrown 
out. Two cards were dealt to each player. The 
players then stood or passed ; if the latter, they dis- 
carded one or both of their cards, and had others in 
exchange. The pool was next put down, and two 



CARD ESSAYS. 59 



more cards dealt to each player. Each then exam- 
ined his hand and either stood or passed. Any one 
that stood might say va or go, and increase his stake 
or go better. If no one else increased the stake to 
equal the amount already gone, the person who 
backed his hand took the pool. But if two or more 
players chose to make vade, each of them might dis- 
card again or not, and then each that stood might 
pass or make the renvi, that is go better again. If 
no one stood the renvi, the player making it won. 
If any stood it they were at liberty to renvier once 
more ; and, the stakes of those who stood the second 
renvi now being equal, the hands had to be shown. 
The winner took the pool the vade and the renvis, 
and in addition certain payments from each of the 
other players, whether they stood the game or not. 
The fredon, four cards of the same denomination, was 
the best hand, next flush-sequence (four cards of the 
same suit in sequence), next tricon (three cards of the 
same denomination), combined with prime (four cards 
of different suits), then flush, tricon, sequence, prime, 
and lastly point. Point was two or three cards of the 
same suit, the highest point being that which con- 
tained the most pips. 

Primero was also played in England. Shakespeare 
represents the King (Henry VIII., act v. sc. i) as 
playing Primero with the Duke of Suffolk, and the 
game was fashionable in the time of Elizabeth. In 
J. Florio's Second Frutes (1591) the following de- 
scription of Primero occurs : — " S. — Goe to, let us play 
at Primero then. * * * A. — Let us agree of our Game. 
What shall we plaie for ? S. — One Shilling stake 
and three rest. A. — Agreede, goe to, discarde. S. — I 



60 CARD ESSAYS. 



vye it ; will you hould it ? A. — Yea, sir, I hould it 
and revye it ; but dispatch. S. — Faire and softly, I 
praie you. 'Tis a great matter. I cannot have a 
chiefe carde. A. — And I have none but coate cardes. 
S. — Will you put it to me ? A. — You bid me to losse. 
S. — Vv r ill youswigg? A. — 'Tis the least part of my 
thought. S. — Let my rest goe then, if you please. 
H.— I hould it. What is your rest? S.— Three 
crownes and one third, showe. What are you ? A. — I 
am four and fif tie ; and you ? S. — Oh! filthie luck ; 
I have lost it one ace." 

The word " revye" here gives a clue to the etymol- 
ogy of the word " vie." Some modern dictionaries 
say it is of uncertain etymology, and suggest the 
German wag en, to wager. Bailey gives "Revy, ren- 
vier, P." Revye is evidently the French renvi used at 
the game of Airibigu. Why should not "vye" be 
the same word adapted to the English language, by 
omitting the duplicating syllable ? 

Later than the sixteenth century, a bastard kind of 
Primero, called Post and Pair, was much played in 
the West of England. A pack of fifty- two cards was 
used. When Cotton wrote (Compleat Gamester, 1674) 
he described the game as under : — " This play depends 
much upon daring ; so that some may win very con- 
siderably, who have the boldness to adventure much 
upon the Vye, although their cards are very indiffer- 
ent." 

' ' You must first stake -at Post, then at Pair ; after 
this deal two cards apiece, then stake at the Seat, and 
then deal the third Card about. The eldest hand 
may pass and come in again if any of the Gamesters 
vye it." 



CARD ESSAYS. 61 



Post would appear to have been the point, the best 
cards being two tens and an ace, counting one-and- 
twenty. A pair royal (three of a kind) beat every- 
thing else, and " wins all, both Post, Pair and Seat." 
What seat is, Cotton does not explain. It seems to 
have been a third stake won by the player who held 
the best card out of those last dealt, as was the case 
at the sister game of Brag. 

Vying continued until all your antagonists were 
daunted and brought to submission. But ' ' If all the 
Gamesters keep in till all have done, and by consent 
shew their Cards, the best Cards carry the game. Now, 
according to agreement, those that keep in till last, 
may divide the stakes, or show the best Card for it." 

The more modern game of Brag is evidently Post 
and Pair with variations. It was played at least as 
early as Hoyle's time, for Hoyle wrote " A short 
Treatise of the Grame of Brag " in 1751. It was play- 
ed with fifty- two cards. The players laid down three 
stakes apiece, one for the best whist card turned up 
in the deal (this is probably the " seat " of the older 
game) ; a second for the best brag hand (pair) ; and 
a third for obtaining thirty-one, or the number near- 
est to it (post). Three cards were dealt to each player, 
the last one all round being turned up, to decide the 
first stake. The next stake was won by the best brag- 
hand, or by the boldest player in backing his hand. 
Two cards, viz. : knave of clubs and nine of diamonds 
(according to Hoyle three braggers), were made fa- 
vorite cards, and were entitled to rank as any card, 
like the quinola at Primero, natural pairs or natural 
pairs royal, however, taking precedence of artificial 
ones. Any player saying " I brag," and increasing 



32 CARD ESSAYS. 



his stake, won, if no one answered with a similar or 
larger deposit. If any one answered, the bragging 
continued as at Post and Pair, till one would brag no 
more or made the stakes equal and called a show. 
After Hoyle's date, flush-sequences, flushes, and se- 
quences were added to the hands that might win in 
bragging. 

For the third stake the players could draw cards 
from the stock to increase the point; but anyone 
over-drawing lost his chance. 

It only remains to observe that the game of Poker, 
originally played on the other of the Atlantic, with 
fifty-two cards, may be described as developed Brag. 
The stakes for highest card and point are omitted, 
and the whole game consists in bragging or "going 
better " on the hands dealt or taken after discarding. 
Each player has five cards, and some winning com- 
binations of cards are adopted from Ambigu, Primero, 
or Brag. The winning hands are as follows, in order : 
straight flush (a flush combined with a sequence), fours 
(four cards of a land with one outside card), fulls 
(three cards of one denomination and a pair), flush 
five cards of the same suit not in sequence), straight 
(a sequence not all of the same suit), triplets (three 
cards of the same denomination, the other two cards 
not being a pair), two pairs, one pair, and highest 
card. It has quite recently been the fashion to play 
with a pack of thirty-two cards, the cards from the 
deuce to the six (both inclusive) being thrown out. 

It is curious that the game of Poker, by many con- 
sidered a new game, should be traceable to a game 
at least four hundred years old. 

Thus, Flush becomes Prim' era, Primero, or Prime. 



CARD ESSAYS. 63 



Prime is modified into Ambigu. The offshoots of the 
last are Post and Pair and Brag. And lastly, " throw- 
ing back" more nearly in some respects to the parent 
games, Poker, now a national game in America, is 
invented. 

In Germany the game of Lansquenet, under the 
name of Landsknechtspiel, played with fifty-two 
cards, was a favorite, and by some authorities is 
called the national German card-game. It is said by 
Bettinelli, in the notes to the second canto of the 
poem already quoted, to have been a kind of Bassett 
or Faro (both very ancient) under another name. 
x\ll these are mere games of chance, with an advan- 
tage to the dealer or holder of the bank. Of games 
of chance Lansquenet is about the simplest, depend- 
ing only on whether a card of one denomination is 
turned up before a card of 'another denomination. It 
is, in fact, hardly a game at all, but merely a com- 
plicated way of playing pitch-and-toss with cards in- 
stead of coins ; and this remark applies to every 
chance game from Bassett to Rouge-et-noir. In Ger- 
many, Lansquenet seems to have been the most usual 
pitch-and-toss card-game ; but to elevate it to the 
dignity of a national card-game, is to treat it with a 
respect it does not deserve. 

Spain is credited with the invention of several games . 
Her claim to the invention of Primero has already 
been noticed ; but preference has been given to the 
view that primero is only the Spanish rendering of 
the Italian Primiera. La Gana pierde was an early 
and popular game, and is no doubt the same game 
as Coquimbert (evidently a corruption of qui gagne 
perd), mentioned in the Gargantua list. In France 



64 CARD ESSAYS. 



a very similar, if not the same, game was called Re- 
versis, just as there Primero, with a difference, was 
re-christened Ambigu. In the Academie des Jeux it 
is said that Reversis was originally Spanish, and that 
it was called Reversis because (in some respects) it 
was the reverse of all other games. If played in Eng- 
land it might have been under another name ; Cot- 
grave says that a card game called Loosing-lodam 
(formerly played in England) was very similar to 
Reversis, and Urquhart translates the Coquimbert 
of Rabelais by " losing load him," probably a mis- 
print for Losing-lodam. Modern Hoyles (including 
additional games not written by Hoyle) contain Re- 
versis ; but no one ever seems to play at it. 

Reversis was played with forty-eight cards, the 
tens being thrown out from a complete pack. Many 
old Spanish packs contain no tens ; and comparing 
this fact with those previously stated, the conclusion 
seems irresistible that La G-ana pierde, alias Coquim- 
bert, alias Reversis, was the game for which they 
were intended. 

The national game of Spain was and is Ombre* It 
is played by three persons with forty cards, the tens, 
nines, and eights being discarded. It is a very 
complicated game, and ; on that account alone, one 
would suppose it must have had a simpler prede- 
cessor. But none of the writers on the subject 
have discovered any similar earlier and less complex 
game. It introduces an entirely new feature, viz. : 
that of playing with a partner or ally, instead of, as 
in the older games, every man's hand (in two senses) 
being against every one else's. 

Ombre is a game of great merit, and was much 



CARD ESSAYS. G5 



played at one time in France and England. Modifi- 
cations of it also were invented, viz. : Ombre a deux, 
Tredille, Quadrille (four players), Quintille (five 
players), Sextille (six players), and Mediateur, or 
Preference, which again has variations such as 8oli- 
taire and Piquemedrille. Tresillio and Rocambor, 
much played in Spanish South America, are simply 
Ombre except in the mode of marking. 

The invention of Piquet is generally attributed to 
France. It is called by Rabelais both le Piquet and 
le Cent ; and the same game under the name of Cientos 
was known very early in Spain. 

There is yet another possible derivation of Piquet, 
viz. : from a German source. Speaking of German 
cards, Merlin says, ' ' For figures we meet kings, supe- 
rior and inferior valets. * ** The pip cards are ten, 
nine, eight, seven, six and two, a composition resem- 
bling our own Piquet, in which the ace has been dis- 
placed by the two. This structure is * * that of the 
Saxon game Schwerter Karte — cartes a V6p6e. What 
appears to confirm our conjecture as to the analogy of 
Piquet with this jeu a Vepee is the fact that in the 
modern cards, manufactured at Vienna, for playing 
the German game * * * the six is suppressed as 
it is in the French piquet-cards since the end of the 
seventeenth century." 

It is possible, too, that this may furnish a clue to 
the etymology of Piquet, a point much disputed. 
The sword of the Italian and Spanish cards is equiva- 
lent to the pique or spade of the French cards. What 
more likely than that Piquet is the French name of 
tne Sc7iwerter, or Sword-game? It has often been 
suspected that Piquet is in some wav connected with 

5 



66 CARD ESSAYS. 



pique, but for what reason has never been clearly 
made out. Piquet, under the name of Sant, a corrup- 
tion of Cent, was played in England until nearly the 
middle of the seventeenth century, when the French 
name of Piquet was adopted, contemporaneously 
with the marriage of Charles I. to a French Princess. 

It is, further, not unlikely that Piquet is a devel- 
oped form of Ronfa, a game included in Berni's list. 
This is in all probability the same game as la Ronfle 
included in Rabelais' list. If these have no connec- 
tion with Piquet, it is at least a remarkable coinci- 
dence that the point at Piquet (one of the most im- 
portant features in the game), was anciently called 
Ronfle. 

Whether or not the French national game was a 
development of the German Sword-game, or of Ronfa 
and Cientos, it certainly, under the name of Piquet, 
became identified with France. Prior to the end of 
the seventeenth century the game of Cientos, Cent, 
Sant or Piquet was played with a pack of thirty-six 
cards, the twos, threes, fours and fives being left out ; 
the sixes were then also withdrawn, and only thirty- 
two cards used, as at present. 

Ecarte may also be regarded as a game especially 
French. As now played it is of quite recent inven- 
tion ; but its earlier forms may be traced back to the 
time of Berni. He includes in his list Trionfi, which 
may be assumed to be the game called Trionfo in 
Spain (mentioned by Vives, a Spaniard, d. 1541, in 
his " Dialogue- " under the name of Triumphus His- 
panicus). There can be little doubt but that these 
games are closely related to la TriompJie of Rabelais. 

Triomphe was played in several ways, either tete-a~ 



CARD ESSAYS. 67 



tcte, or with partners, or as a round game. A piquet- 
pack was used, the ace ranking between the knave 
and ten. Five cards were dealt to each player, by 
two and by three at a time, and the top card of the 
stock was turned up for trumps. The players were 
obliged to win the trick if able. The player or side 
that won three tricks marked one point ; the winners 
of the vole, two points. The game was usually five 
up. If one side or player was not satisfied, they might 
offer the point to the adversary. If he refused, he 
was bound to win the vole or to have two scored 
against him. 

The same game was played in England, and is de- 
scribed by Cotton under the name of French-Ruff. 
It appears from Cotton that the players might discard 
(though the passage is rather obscure), and offering 
the point is absent from his account of the game. 

The family likeness of Triomphe or French-Ruff to 
Ecarte scarcely needs pointing out. The main dif- 
ference is the addition of a score for the king at 
Ecarte. 

The French settlers in America took Triomphe with 
them, and transformed it into Euchre, now a na- 
tional game in the States. 

The game of Triomphe or French-Ruff must not be 
confused with the English game of Trump or Ruff- 
and-Honors, the predecessor of our national game of 
Whist. Cotton clearly distinguishes between the two , 
calling Triomphe, French-RuR (ruff and trump be- 
ing synonymous), and Trump, JEnglish-Ruft-fiiid 
Honors. 

Trump seems to have been entirely of English 
origin ; at least no mention of it occurs in continen- 



68 CARD ESSAYS. 



tal books on games, the nearest approach to it being 
les Honneurs mentioned* by Rabelais. Trump was 
played in England as early as the beginning of the 
sixteenth century. The game of Ruff-and-Honors, by 
some called Slamm, was probably the same game, 
or, if not, a similar game with the addition of a score 
for honors. It was played by four persons, with 
fifty- two cards, twelve cards being dealt to each and 
four left in the stock, the top card of which was 
turned up for trumps. The holder of the ace of trumps 
ruffed, i.e., he put out four cards and took in the 
stock. The game was nine up, and at the point of 
eight, honors could be called as at long Whist. 

The game, with a slight modification, was after- 
wards called Whisk or Whist. In Taylor's " Motto " 
(1621), Whisk is one of the games enumerated. This 
is the earliest known mention of the game in print, 
and it is to be observed that it is spelt Whisk, not 
Whist. Cotton spells it both ways (see p. 73). In 
the Compleat Gamester, 1674, he says that ''Whist is 
a game not much differing from this [i.e., Rufit-and- 
Honors], only they put out the Deuces and take in 
no stock." The trump was the bottom card, and 
the game was nine up. Whist, then, was originally 
played with forty-eight cards, and the odd-trick, that 
important feature in the modern game was, of course, 
wanting. 

Not long after this the game was made ten up. 
Cotton, ed. 1799, says the points were "nine in all ; " 
ed. 1721, "ten in all;" ed. 1725, " nine in all;" 
Seymour, ed. 1734, with which Cotton was incorpor- 
ated, " ten in all ; " and it may be assumed that, 
simultaneously with this change, the practice of play- 



CARD ESSAYS. 69 



ing with fifty-two cards obtained. While Whist was 
undergoing these changes, it was occasionally played 
with swabbers or swobbers, certain cards, (not the 
honors), which entitled the holder to a stake inde- 
pendently of the general event of the game. 

After the swabbers were dropped, our national 
card game having been known as Trump, Ruff-and 
Honors, Slam, Whisk, and Whist-and-Swabbers, 
finally became Whist. Whist it was when EdmojSD 
Hoti,e wrote (A Short TREATISE On the Game of 
WHIST. By a Gentleman, 1742), and Whist it 
has since remained. The only alterations that have 
been made are the reduction of the game from ten 
up to five up, the introduction of the treble game, 
and the abolition of calling honors. The laws were 
also revised in 1864. And lastly, since about 1730, 
when a party of gentlemen used to frequent the 
Crown Coffee House, in Bedford Row, (where they 
studied Whist, and laid down the following rules : 
''Lead from the strong suit; study your partner's 
hand ; and attend to the score ; " ) the game has been 
greatly elaborated as regards scientific play. So far 
has this been carried that, now, as Clay well remarks, 
" Whist is a language, and every card played an in- 
telligible sentence." 

Whist, a game (so far as is known) of purely Eng- 
lish invention, is now the King of Card-Games, and 
seems destined, for many a long year, to retain that 
distinction. 



70 CARD ESSAYS. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Bartsch, Adam. — Le Peintre-Graveur. Leipsic, 
1803, 1821, 1854, 8vo. Vol. vi., p. 55 ; vol. x., pp. 
70-120 ; vol. xiii., pp. 120-138. 

Singer, Samuel Weller. — Researches into the 
History of Playing- Cards ; with Illustrations of the 
Origin of Printing and Engraving on Wood. London, 
1816. 4to. 

Peignot, Gabriel. — Recherches Historiques et 
Litteraires sur les Danses des Morts, et sur l'Origine 
des Cartes a Jouer. Dijon et Paris, 1826. 8vo. 

Cicognara, Leopoldo. — Memorie spettanti alia 
Storia della Calografia. Prato, 1831. 8vo. 

* Bibliophiles Francais, Societe des. Jeuxde 
Cartes Tarots, et de Cartes Nunierales, du quatorzieme 
au dix-huitieme Siecle. Paris, 1844. Folio. 

* Chatto, William Andrew. — Facts and Specu- 
lations on the Origin and History of Playing-Cards. 
London, 1848. 8vo. 

* Boiteau, Paul (d'Ambly). — Les Cartes a jouer 
et la Cartomancie. Paris, 1854, and London, 1859. 
8vo. 

Passavant, J. D. — Le Peintre-Graveur. Leipsic 
1860. 8vo. Vol. i., pp. 6, 208, 213, 243 ; vol ii., pp. 66 ; 



CARD ESSAYS. 71 



70, 100, 176, 205, 242, 246, 247 ; vol. v., pp. 11, 119, 
126, 129, 132, 134. 

Taylor, Rev. Ed. S. (B.A.), axd others.— The 
History of Playing- Cards, with anecdotes of their Use 
in Conjuring, Fortune-Telling, and Card-Sharping. 
London, 1865. 8vo. 

(Translated from Paul Boiteau, with numerous ad- 
ditions and alterations). 

Merlix, R.— Origine des Cartes a jouer. Re- 
cherches Nouvelles sur les Na'ibis, les Tarots, et sur 
les autres Especes de Cartes. Paris, 1869. 4to. 

* Willshire, William Hughes (M.D., Edin.).— 
A descriptive Catalogue of Playing and other Cards 
in the British Museum, accompanied by a concise 
general History of the Subject, and remarks on Cards 
of Divination and of a politico-historical Character. 
London, 1876. Ryl. 8vo. 

Those marked * contain bibliographical list*. 



CARD ESSATS. 



ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF " WHIST," AND 
OF OTHER WORDS USED IN CON- 
NECTION WITH IT. 



" Etymology has been so unsuccessful in establishing clear and 
definite principles, or so unfortunate in their application that many 
persons regard it as bearing the same relation to grammar as astrology 
does to astromony, alchemy to chemistry, or perpetual motion to me- 
chanics ."— YVelsford. 



The word "Whist," or more properly "Whisky- 
is of modern coinage. It does not occur in Shake- 
speare, nor, so far as is known, in any books until late 
in the first quarter of the seventeenth century. This 
statement has frequently been printed, and as it has 
never been controverted, its correctness may be as- 
sumed. 

The original form of the word in print was Whisk. 
It occurs, thus spelt, in "Taylor's Motto," by Taylor, 
the Water-Poet, published in 1621, and this is be- 
lieved to be its first appearance in print. Speaking 
of the prodigal, Taylor says : 

" He flings his money free with carelessnesse. 
At novum, mumchance, mischance (ohuse ye which), 
At one and thirty, or at poore and rich, 
Ruffe, slam, trump, nody, whisk, hole, Bant, new cut." 



CARD ESSAYS. 73 



According to The Quarterly Review, January, 1871, 
Whisk continued to be spelt with a k for about 
forty years after Taylor's mention of it. The writer 
in The Quarterly says that the earliest known use of 
the word whist, spelt with a t, is in the second part 
of Hudibras (spurious), published in 1663, and quoted 
by Johnson : — 

" But what was this ? A game at Whist 
Unto our Plowden-Canonist." 

And here, it will be observed, the rhyme requires the 
alteration. 

Later the word was spelt indifferently whisk or 
whist for many years. Cotton (1674) in his descrip- 
tion of the game, always spells it whist, but in his 
account of " Picket" he says the players "follow in 
suit as at Whisk ; " Farquhar (" Beaux's Stratagem," 
1707) spells it whisk ; Pope (" Epistle to Mrs. Theresa 
Blount," 1715) spells it whisk ; Swift (" Essay on the 
Fates of Clergymen," 1728) spells it whist ; Thomson 
("Autumn," 1730) spells it whist; Fielding ("His- 
tory of Jonathan Wild the Great," 1754) spells it 
whisk; Grose ("Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 
1785) spells it whist ; the Hon. Daines Barrington 
(" Archaeologia," v6*l. viii., 1787) spells it whisk and 
whist. After this, so far as is known, it is always 
spelt whist. 

Charles Cotton describes Whist in " The Compleat 
Gamester : or Instructions how to play at. Billiards, 
Trucks, Bowls, and Chess. Together with all man- 
ner of usual and most Gentile Games either on Cards 
or Dice. London, 1674." Although he was ac- 
quainted with the form Whisk, as already stated, he 
ignores that in his derivation, saying that the game 



74 CARD ESSAYS. 



" is called Whist from the silence that is to be ob- 
served in the play." 

In 1719, Richard Seymour produced " The Court 
Gamester: or full and easy Instructions for playing 
the games now in Vogue, after the best method ; as 
they are Play'd at Court, and in the Assemblies, viz.: 
Ombre, Picquet, and the Royal Game of Chess. 
Written for the Use of the Young Princesses. Lon- 
don.' ' This contains no whist. But about 1734, 
Cotton's and Seymour's books were incorporated, 
with the following title : — " The Compleat Gamester : 
In three parts, viz. I. Full and easy Instructions 
for playing the Games chiefly used at Court and in 
the Assemblees, viz., Ombre, Quadrille, Quintille, 
Picquet, Basset, Faro, and the Royal Game of Chess. 
II. The true Manner of playing the most usual Games 
at Cards, viz., Whist, All-Fours, Cribbidge, Put, Lue, 
Brag, &c, with several diverting Tricks upon the 
Cards. III. Rules for playing at all the Games both 
within and without the Tables ; likewise at English 
and French Billiards. Also the Laws of each Game 
annexed to prevent Disputes. London." 

Under Whist we find, " Whist, vulgarly called 
Whisk. The Original Benominaiion of this game is 
Whist : Or, The Silent Game at Cards." And again, 
"Talking is not allowed at Whist; the very Word 
implies, Hold your Tongue. 1 ' 

Seymour seems to be strangely wrong in this state- 
ment, which he no doubt amplified from Cotton. 
The " original denomination," so far as is known, 
was Whisk; and if this is admitted all derivations 
from the interjection commanding silence require re- 
consideration. 



CARD ESSAYS. 75 



Nevertheless, the Whist-silence derivation was sup- 
ported by Johnson and Nares. It is true that Dr. 
Johnson cautiously avoided saying that Whist means 
silence. He denned Whist as " a game at Cards, re- 
quiring close attention and silence," and from this it 
may be inferred that he had accepted etymology, but 
that he doubted its accuracy. Nares, however, in 
his "Glossary," rushed in where Johnson feared to 
tread. He well remarks in his preface that he knows 
"the extreme fallaciousness of the science of etymol- 
ogy when based on mere similarity of sound." But 
under " Whist " he forgets his own canon, for he says, 
" That the name of the game of Whist is derived from 
this, is known, I presume, to all who play or do not 
play." 

Other authorities reject the derivation of Whist from 
silence. Dr. E. Cobham Brewer justly writes : — 

"It is hardly necessary to state that the vulgar 
etymology of " whist," from the interjection meaning 
silence, is wholly worthless, because the word is obvi- 
ously a corruption of the older form ' whisk.' The 
French ' Dictionnaire Universel des Sciences, des 
Lettres, et des Arts ' says : — ' Whist de 1' anglais whist ! 
(silence !), parce qu'il est defendu de parler a ce jeu, 
et de faire connaitre in erne a son partner le jeu qu'on 
a dans la main.' This is not special to the game of 
whist, but applies with equal force to the score of 
other games, and even if special cannot be admitted, 
as the word whist is only a corruption of a more an- 
cient name. We will next clear the ground of all 
those languages which cannot have supplied the 
word, and thus reduce the area of research to 
the smallest possible compass. As there is no w in • 



76 CARD ESSAYS. 



Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, &c, we must 
not look for the word in those languages, at any rate 
either in the forni of whist or whisk ; and, as there 
is no wh in German, we must not look for it in Ger- 
man. Similarly the Scandinavian family of lan- 
guages is excluded, unless, indeed, it is some corrup- 
tion. Now it cannot be a corruption of an}^ Romance, 
German or Scandinavian word, inasmuch as the 
word itself exists in several of the European lan- 
guages, even although they do not possess a w or 
wh. Thus in French we have whist, although w is 
not a French letter. In German we have whist, al- 
though wh is not a German combination. The same 
may be said of other nations, and we cannot withhold 
the obvious conclusion that the word has been borrow- 
ed by them from the English and naturalized ; or, in 
other words, that the game is a British game, and the 
word mustbe looked for wi thin the British dominions.' ' 

The Doctor proposes a Welsh source, gwis, tanta- 
mount to the French invite, lead. Though inge- 
nious, this derivation is said to be philologically 
untenable, because " gw " in Welsh, is represented 
by " w " in English, and not by " wh." 

Chatto, a very careful writer, suggests in his " Facts 
and Speculations " that whisk is derived by substi- 
tution from the word ruff. Ruffs and whisks as ar- 
ticles of dress were practically synonymous. The 
game already had several aliases, viz. : triumph, 
trump, slam, ruff, and ruff-and-honors. At this time 
(middle of the seventeenth century), the game was 
in a transition state, and it seems not unlikely that on 
another alias being added, a word almost synony- 
mous with ruff should be chosen. At all events this 



CARD ESSAYS. 77 



derivation seems less improbable than any other that 
has been offered. Ruff, as the name of a game, has 
been supposed to have reference to the ruff worn by 
the figures on the coate cards. But this derivation is 
open to argument. 

The following considerations as to the derivation 
of ruff, are submitted, not dogmatically, but in hopes 
of contributing to the solution of a disputed and dif- 
ficult question. 

Ruff appears at one time to have meant the point at 
1 Piquet. In " Le Royal Jev dv Piqvet plaisant et 
recreatif" Rouen, 1647, the point is called "ronfle" 
The book was translated into English in 1651, with 
the following title, " The Royall and delightful Grame 
of Picquet written in French and now rend'red into 
English out of the last French Edition." In this 
book the word " ronfle " is translated " ruffe." Cot- 
ton, in the " Compleat Gamester," also calls the point 
the ruff. " After the discarding you must consider 
the Ruff, that is how much you can make of one 
suit." This, however, does not help us much. Even 
if ruff is derived from ronfle, how did a word, formerly 
used to signify the point at Piquet, come to designate 
an English game ? 

At English-Ruff or Ruff-and-Honors, ruffing did not 
necessarily mean trumping, as it does at modern 
Whist. The term was employed in the sense of dis- 
carding. Cotton (" Compleat Gamester "; says, " At 
Ruff and Honors, by some called Slainm, you have in 
the Pack all the Deuces, and the reason is, because 
four playing having dealt twelve a piece, there are 
four left for the Stock, the uppermost whereof is 
turn'd up. and that is Truinns, he that hath the Ace 



78 CARD ESSAYS. 



of that Ruffs ; that is, he takes in those four cards, 
and lays out four others in their lieu." 

The connection between discarding and so adding 
to the point or ronfle at Piquet (the great object with 
good players), and discarding at Ruff-and-Honors 
and so adding to the number of trumps in hand 
(trump and ruff being synonymous as will presently 
appear), is not very remote. One link only is want- 
ing. If it could but be shown that ronfler ever meant 
to discard, or rather to add to the rowjle or point by 
discarding and taking in, the chain would be com- 
plete. To assume some such meaning is not more 
violent than the assumption that whisk is derived by 
substitution from ruff ; at all events, in the absence 
of a better theory, this may perhaps be allowed to 
pass muster. 

French-Ruff, or Triomphe (French) was a kind of 
Ecarte, at which discarding w T as an essential part of 
the game. Here again ruffing and discarding are 
brought face to face. The Game is called French- 
Ruff in the " Compleat Gamester,' ' Triomphe in the 
" Academie des Jeux." It must not be confounded 
with the English game of Trump, which, if not the 
same game as Ruff-and-Honors, was, like the latter, 
an imperfect form of Whist. 

The derivation of Trump, the game from which 
Ruff-and-Honors and Whist were derived, is com- 
paratively simple. 

- Trump is a corruption of the word triumph. It 
occurs both in its original and its corrupt form in 
Latimer's sermon "On the Card," preached at St. 
Edmund's Church, Cambridge, the Sunday before 
Christmas, 1529 :*— 



CARD ESSAYS. 79 



" And whereas you are wont to celebrate Christ- 
mass in playing at Cards, I intend, by God's Grace, 
to deal unto you Christ's Cards, wherein you shall 
perceive Christ's Rule. The game that we play at 
shall be called the Triumph, which, if it be well played 
at, he that dealeth shall win; the Players shall 
likewise win ; and the standers and lookers upon 
shall do the same ; insomuch . that there is no Man 
willing to play at this Triumph with these Cards, 
but they shall be all winners and no losers * * * 
You must mark also, that the Triumph must apply to 
fetch home unto him all the other Cards, whatever 
suit they be of * * * Then further we must say to 
ourselves, What requireth Christ of a Christian Man ? 
Now turn up your Trump, your Heart (Hearts is 
Trump, as I said before), and cast your Trump, 
your Heart, on this Card." 

There is abundant evidence that trump and 
triumph are the same word. Shakespeare (Antony 
and Cleopatra, Act IV., scene 12), introduces triumph 
in the double sense of a warlike triumph, and of a 
trump card. The passage, containing repeated pun- 
ning allusions to card-playing, leaves no doubt as to 
1 he reference to cards in the word triumph. 

Again, Seymour, in the " Court Gamester," 1719, 
says :— u The Term Trump comes from a Corruption 
of the Word Triumph ; for wherever they are, they 
are attended with Conquest." 

How ruff came to be synonymous with trump is 
uncertain. In Cotgrave's "French and English Dic- 
tionary," 1611, is found " Triomphe, The Card Game 
called Ruffe or Trump," and many other authorities 
couple the two words in a similar way, Nares, in his 



80 CARD ESSAYS. 



" Glossary," says : — "Ruff meant a trump eeLrd,charta 
dominatrix." 

Another synonym for Ruff-and-Honours was Slam. 
This word is now openly applied to the winning of 
every trick, and the usual derivation given is from 
lamen, to smite. It must be admitted, however, that 
this etymology requires further investigation. 

Soon after Ruff-and-Honours acquired the appel- 
lation of Whisk, a term of very strange character, 
viz.: swabbers or swobbers became asssociated with it. 
Fielding, in his "History of the Life of the late Mr. 
Jonathan Wild, the Great," records that when the 
ingenious Count La Ruse was domiciled with Mr. 
Geoffrey Snap, in 1682, or, in other words, was in a 
spunging-house, the Count beguiled the tedium of 
his in-door existence by playing at Whisk-and-Swab- 
bers, " the game then in the chief vogue." Swift also, 
in his " Essay on the Fates of Clergymen " (1728), ridi- 
cules Archbishop Tenison for not understanding the 
meaning of swabbers. The story goes that a clergy- 
man was recommended to the Archbishop for prefer- 
ment, when His Grace said, " he had heard that the 
clergyman used to play at Whist and swobbers ; that 
as to playing now and then a sober game at Whist, 
it might be pardoned ; but he could not digest those 
wicked swobbers." Johnson defines swobbers as 
" four privileged cards used incidentally in betting at 
Whist." In Captain Francis Grose's ' ; Classical Dic- 
tionary of the Vulgar Tongue" (1785), swabbers are 
stated to be " The ace of hearts, knave of clubs, ace 
and duce of trumps at Whist." The Hon. Daines 
Barrington (writing in 1787), says, that at the begin- 
ning of the century, Whisk was " played with what 



CARD ESSAYS. 81 



were called swabbers, which were possibly so termed, 
because they who had certain cards in their hand 
were entitled to take up a share of the stake, inde- 
pendent of the general event of the game." 

No satisfactory etymology of the word swabbers 
can be given. Chatto (" Facts and Speculations") 
suggests that "the fortunate, clearing the board of 
this extraordinary stake, might be compared by sea- 
men to the Swabbers (or cleaners of the deck) " of a 
vessel. This must be regarded rather as a " Specula- 
tion " than as a " Fact." 

Swabbers, as an adjunct to the game of Whist, 
eventually dropped away. But it seems possible that 
they may still linger in local coteries. Mr. R. B. 
Wormald, writing in CasselPs "Popular Recreator," 
in April, 1873, says : — 

" Would the giants of the ' Portland' or ' Arling- 
ton ' [now The Turf Club], be surprised to hear that 
in this enlightened nineteenth century the ' swabber ' 
still holds its place in rural Whist, and that we our- 
selves have personally come across the anachronism ? 
The phenomenon occurred in this wise : — Some few 
years ago, in the course of a boating trip from Oxford 
to London, we were driven by stress of weather to 
take shelter one summer evening in a sequestered 
hostelry on the Berkshire bank of the Thames, and 
on entering the parlor we were agreeably surprised 
to find four local ' Cavendishes ' deeply immersed in 
the * game of silence,' to the accompaniment of long 
pipes. In the middle of the hand, one of the players, 
with a grin that almost amounted to a chuckle, and 
a vast display of moistened thumb, spread out upon 
the table the ace of trumps; whereupon the other three 
6 



82 CARD KSSAYS. 



deliberately laid down their hands, and forthwith 
severally handed over the sum of one penny to the 
fortunate holder of the card in question. On inquiry 
we were informed that the process was technically 
known as a ' swap ' (qy. ' swab ' or ' swabber '), and 
was de rigueur in all properly constituted whist cir- 
cles. Our efforts to elucidate the etymology of the 
term proved unavailing ; but this is scarcely surpris- 
ing, seeing that the true etymology of ' Whist ' itself 
— though popularly associated with * silence ' — is a 
very moot point, while the derivation of the word 
* ruff ' or 'to ruff ' is a mystery that, to the best of 
our knowledge, no lexicographer has ever succeeded 
in unravelling." 

The extreme obscurity which shrouds the etymol- 
ogy of these various technical terms connected with- 
Whist is not less remarkable than the changes of 
name undergone by the game itself. First in order 
comes Triumph or Trump, a game of purely English 
origin, and in no-way connected with the French 
game of la TriompJie. Trump, possibly with some 
additions or alterations, became converted into Ruff- 
and-Honours, and Slam. Whisk followed, differing 
but little from these. Swobbers were afterwards 
joined on to Whisk, but Whisk-and-Swobbers was 
abandoned, and our national card game became 
simply Whist, under which name it seems likely to 
remain for an indefinite time the King of Card 
Grames. 



CARD ESSAYS. 



DUTIES ON PLAYING-CARDS. 



M It is quite right that there should be a heavy duty on Cards."— 
Southey. 



That Playing-Cards, being articles of luxury, are 
fit objects for the imposition of a duty, is a proposi- 
tion wiiich can hardly be denied. But what the 
amount of the duty should be is by no means clear. 
A high duty checks production, diminishes consump- 
tion, and leads to evasion. Experience renders it 
probable that the present duty of 3d. a pack is about 
as high a one as can be borne, without defeating its 
own object, as will appear from the following histor- 
ical sketch. 

A tax was first levied on playing-cards in the reign 
of James I. (1015). In the " Calendar of State Papers," 
Domestic Series, A. D. K311-1G18, is the following 
minute :— " 1615, July 20. Westminster.— (19). Letters 
Patent granting to Sir Richard Coningsby, for a rent 
of £200 per annum, the imposition of 5s. per gross 
on playing-cards, and the office of Inspector of all 
playing-cards imported in recompense of £1,800 due 
to him from the King, and of his patent for the sole 
export of Tin, granted by the late Queen." Warrant 
for the above granted July 19. 



84 CARD ESSAYS. 



The proclamation of this patent is preserved in the 
library of the Society of Antiquaries ; and following 
the proclamation is "The Copie of the Lord Trea- 
sourer's Letter," as under : — " After my heartie com- 
mendations, whereby it hath pleased his Majestie to 
direct a Privy Seal to me, touching the imposition of 
five shillings upon every grosse of Playing Cards that 
shall be Imported into this Kingdome or the Domin- 
ions thereof by vertue of his Majestie's Letters Patents 
granted to Sir Richard Coningsby knight under the 
Greate Seale of England. In regard whereof These 
are to wil and require you to take notice thereof and 
not to suffer any merchant to make any entry of 
Playing-Cards until the same impositions be payed 
according to the said Letters patents. Provided that 
the Patentees give caution for maintayning the Cus- 
tome and Import according to a Medium thereof to 
be made as in such cases is used : And so having sig- 
nified his Majestie's pleasure to you in that behalfe 
T bid you heartily farewell. 

" Your Louing Friend, 

"THO : SUFFOLKE. 

■ ' From Northampton House the 
29th of October, 1615." 

The date usually taken, probably on the authority 
of Singer, for the original taxing of cards is 1631. It 
may be that he confused between the imposition of 
the tax, and the protest against it made in the reign 
of Charles I. The duty on cards was one of the taxes 
then complained of by the Commons * ' as arbitrary 
and illegal, and being levied without consent of Par- 
liament." 

In the reign of Queen Anne playing-cards were first 



CARD ESSAYS. 85 



subjected to a duty with the consent of Parliament. 
In 1710 an act was passed to obtain an annual sum of 
£186,670 as a fund or security for raising a sum of £2,- 
602,200. " for carrying on the war, and for other her 
Majesty's Occasions." It was enacted that playing- 
cards should pay a duty of sixpence a pack for a term 
of thirty-two years, commencing June 11, 1711. 
Under the act, all makers of cards or dice were re- 
quired to send to the Commissioners of the Stamp 
Duties on Vellum, parchment, and paper, notice in 
writing containing the address of the house or place 
where cards or dice were manufactured. Makers omit- 
ting to send such notice, or manufacturing in houses 
not notified, became liable to a penalty of £50. 
Various other vexatious obligations were imposed, as, 
for example, the makers had to permit the proper 
officers for the duties in question to enter their houses 
of business to " take an account of the cards and dice 
there made,'' on penalty of £10 for every refusal. 
The makers were not allowed to remove cards from 
the factory until the paper and thread enclosing every 
pack was sealed in such a manner as was satisfactory 
to the Commissioners of Duties, under pain of forfeit- 
ing the goods removed, and treble their value. In ad- 
dition, the card and dice makers were required to make 
entry, upon oath, once in every twenty-eight days of 
the number of cards and dice manufactured by them 
in the interim, and they had to clear within the en- 
suing fortnight the amount of duty then declared due. 
Neglect on these scores was visited by forfeiture of 
£20 for default in making entry, and double duty for 
non-payment of the tax within the specified time. 
Tbe proposal to lay an impost on playing cards en- 



86 CARD ESSAYS, 



countered much opposition. Several petitions against 
the tax were presented to Parliament, by card-makers 
and importers of. paper, which are sufficiently inter- 
esting to be quoted at some length : — 

<' Considerations in Relation to THE IMPOSITION 
ON CARDS, Humbly submitted to the Honorable 
House of Commons : — 

Nine parts in ten of the cards now made are sold 
from 6s. to 24s. per gross, and even these six shillings 
in cards by this Duty are subjected to pay £3 12s. tax. 

This with humble submission will destroy Nine 
Parts in Ten of this manufacture for those Cards 
which are now bought for 3d., can't then be afforded 
under lOeZ. or a shilling, for every hand through which 
they pass will add again in consideration of the Tax 
imposed and therefore the generality of the people will 
buy none at all. 

"If any of your Honors hope by this Tax to sup- 
press expensive Card-playing, It is answered, That 
the Common sort who play for innocent diversion will 
by this tax be only hinder' d ; for those sharp game- 
sters who play for money but do not use the Twentieth 
part of the Cards sold, will not by this Tax be dis- 
couraged ; for those who play for many Pounds at a 
game will not be hindered by paying 127. per pack: 
And the destruction of this manufacture will be at- 
tended with these ill consequences : — 

11 First. Nothing (in comparison) will be (clear of 
all charges) raised by this duty imposed. 

" Secondly . All that depend upon this manufacture 
will be rendered incapable to maintain their numerous 
families or pay their debts. 

" Thirdly. The English paper manufacture (which 



CARD ESSAYS. 87 



is the middle of the Cards) will be extremely preju- 
diced. 

"Fourthly. The importation of the Genoa White 
Paper (with which the Cards are covered) will be 
very much diminished ; and in the consequence 
thereof, 

14 Fifthly and lastly. Her Majesty will lose as much 
Paper duty as the clear Duty on the Cards to be sold 
will amount unto. 

" And if it be intended to charge the Stock in hand, 
then the present Possessors will be thereby obliged to 
pay a Duty for Ten times more Cards than ever they 
will sell. 

" Wherefore it is humbly hoped, That your Honors 
will not lay a Duty which its humbly conceived will 
bring no profit to the Queej^, but inevitably ruin many 
hundreds of her subjects." 

The merchants importing Genoa paper and others 
followed suit in a similar strain : — 

* 4 The case of the Merchants Importing Genoa paper, 
the Stationers, Haberdashers of small ware, the 
English Paper-makers, and Card-makers. 

44 In relation to the Intended Duty on Cards, humbly 
submitted to the Honorable House of Commons." 

The preamble with slight alterations proceeds as in 
the previous petition down to the end of the first '411 
consequence," and then the petition continues as fol- 
lows : — 

44 Secondly. The English Paper-Manufacture ex- 
tremely prejudiced, because by a modest computation 
there are 150 Paper Mills in England and each of 
these one with another Annually make 400 Rheams ; 
one-Fourth of which is now used in the ordinary 



88 CARD ESSAYS. 



cards, and none of these will (when this great Duty is 
imposed) be ever made. 

" Thirdly. Her Majesty's Customs arising from the 
Importation of Genoa Paper will be extremely les- 
sen' d : for it is reasonably supposed that there are 
40,000 Rheams of Genoa paper annually used in this 
manufacture, which already pays Custom 10<2. per 
Rheani, amounting to £1,666 13s., which by this in- 
tended duty will be quite lost, the said Genoa paper 
being of little use but in Card-making. 

" Fourthly. Three parts in four of the Card-makers, 
and the many families which depend upon them, will 
by this intended Tax be inevitably ruin'd, for those 
Card-makers depend upon their credit and work 8 
months in 12 for the Winter-Season, and during those 
8 months scarce receive enough to find their families 
with Bread, and therefore can never pay this great 
Duty, and consequently not follow their trade. 

" Seeing by this intended Duty her Majesty's loss in 
her Customs, the loss of the merchants importing 
paper, of the Stationers who credit the Card-makers, 
of the Wholesale Haberdashers who sell the Cards, 
and of the Card-makers, will amount to five times 
more than this designed imposition can clear of all 
charges be suppos'd to raise ; and five parts in six of 
the Card-makers and their numerous Dependents in- 
evitably ruined. 

" It is therefore humbly hop' d this Honorable House 
will give relief in the Premisses." 

The poor Card-makers and the Company of Card- 
makers also presented petitions against the tax, in 
language almost identical. The following is the peti- 
tion known as that of the " poor " card-makers : — 



CARD ESSAYS. B9 



"Reasons Humbly offer'd by the Card-maker? 
against the Tax upon Playing-Cards 

ard-raakers in and - T y of London 

are about One Hundred Master Workmen, : : -::_._-- 
time past 'Taper haviij Lonble the Price as for- 

mer!; ftde is much decayed. 

r Cards for to the Retailers 

si :>rt with another) is Three Half-pence the Pack, 

and their Profit not above one Half-penny. So that 

the Tax intended v. - value of the Cards 

and six times their gain. 

"Ti:- _ ■:: these Card-ma h Poormen 

can hardly main- 
their families : And therefore t se a Tax to 

be immediately paid upon making by the Card- 
make Stocks and Abilities are so very mean 
that they now make hard shift to forbear the Retailers 
the ordinary time of Credit; will be a direct way to 
Ruine these P-. or Men. 

" Be: is at present a Stock of Cards in the 

retail ids sufficient for the consumption of Four 

or Five years ; and they will assuredly sell all the old 
stock off before they take any at the New advanced 
rate: The conseqnenc i will be : — 

-' First. That the Card-makers till that stock be 
sold off can make no new on . 

"Secondly. That during that time their Families 
must needs star 

istly. That until the card-makers can make new 

•y can arise by such Tax." 

Her Ma; j," however, were such that 

opposition was fruitless, and the Act became law. 

Theduty was imp m made fit for sale" 



90 CARD ESSAYS. 



during a certain term. In the following year it was 
found expedient, for the better securing the duties on 
playing-cards, and to prevent defrauding of the rev- 
enue, to amend this, and to enact that all stocks of 
cards which were fit for sale before the operation of 
the former act commenced, and which remained un- 
sold in the hands of any person trading in cards, 
should be brought to the Stamp-office to be marked. 
On the traders making oath that the stocks so brought 
were actually made and finished before the 12th of 
June, 1711, they were entitled on payment of one half- 
penny per pack to have them sealed or stamped ac- 
cordingly. All cards not brought to the Office before 
the 1st of August, 1712, were to be deemed to be made 
fit for sale after June, 1711, and to be charged with 
the full duty. And after July, 1712, no playing-cards 
were to be exposed for sale or used in play in any 
public gaming-house unless marked in conformity 
with the provisions of the act, both on the wrapper 
and on the spotted or painted side (now called the 
fore-side), of one of the cards of each pack. 

By the same Act the regulations permitting the 
search entry of revenue officers to the houses of 
card-makers were extended to public gaming-houses ; 
and the notices required to be given by card- makers, 
and the clauses relating to the removal of unstamped 
cards, were amended and made more stringent. 

Offenders against these provisions were rendered 
liable to a penalty of £5 for every pack of unstamped 
cards found in their possession. It was also made 
felony, punishable with death, to counterfeit or forge 
the seals, stamps or marks which denoted the pay- 
ment of the duties. About ninety~five years ago the 



CARD ESSAYS. 91 



punishment of death was actually inflicted on an. un- 
fortunate engraver named Harding, who engraved a 
duty ace of spades to the order of a card-maker. The 
card-maker escaped from the country, or he would, 
in all probablity, have shared the engraver's fate. 

Despite the precautions and penalties enumerated, 
frauds on the revenue continued. Indeed, every 
enactment relating to playing-cards is accompanied 
by some reference to fraudulent practices with regard 
to the duties under the former Act. It was now 
discovered that persons were in the habit, after cards 
had been used, of cutting out and tearing off the 
marks placed on the fore-side of playing cards, for the 
purpose of affixing the same marks to fresh packs, 
and so of making one stamp serve over and over 
again. There was also a method contrived to render 
available for further use the seal and stamp upon the 
outside papers or wrappers. In order to check these 
proceedings a clause was introduced into an Act 
passed in 6 Geo. I. (1719) " for preventing frauds and 
abuses in the public revenues." A penalty of £10 
was imposed on any person convicted of working up 
old stamps ; and, when it was suspected that cards 
were being made up for sale in any private place 
(that is in any place of which the Commissioners of 
Stamps had not the usual written notice), power was 
given to the revenue officers, on a warrant being 
granted, to break open the doors ql the suspected 
places, and to enter, and seize all " cards, dice, tools, 
and materials with which they are made.'* 

Further, the term of thirty-two years over which 
the duty upon playing-cards was to remain in force 
was extended indefinitely. 



92 CARD ESSAYS. 



Matters remained in the state described until 29 
Geo. II. (1756), when an additional tax of sixpence 
a pack was imposed on playing-cards. As usual, the 
opportunity was taken to frame measures in expecta- 
tion of preventing the fraudulent evasions of the duty 
which still obtained. It transpired that great frauds 
were committed under pretence that cards were 
manufactured for exportation, such cards being 
exempt from duty. It was therefore enacted that 
all playing-cards intended for exportation should be 
distinguished by a particular wrapper, and that one 
card in each export pack should be marked with a 
special stamp. Cards wraprjed and stamped as for 
exportation were not to be used in Great Britain, 
under a penalty of £20. A £20 penalty was also 
attached to the selling and buying of any covers 
or labels that had been already used. 

It appeared also that the trick of selling slightly 
soiled playing-cards as " waste " was largely practised, 
to the detriment of the revenue. The soiled cards 
consisted of those so damaged in making as to be 
rejected by the manufacturers. They were purchased 
for a few pence per pound, chiefly by Jew speculators, 
who sorted them and disposed of them at a cheap 
rate. In order to put a stop to this system, all 
persons disposing of cards " commonly called waste 
cards" were required before sale to " mark the back 
or plain side of every painted or picture card in such 
manner as to render the same unfit to be used in 
play." 

In the reign of George III. no less than seven 
Acts of Parliament were passed relating to cards and 
dice. All this legislation tended to two ends, — to 



CARD ESSAYS. 93 



impose additional duties, and to circumvent the 
evaders of the tax. It was more than suspected that 
the Inland Revenue officers were tampered with. A 
new plan was therefore resolved on. Hitherto the 
stamp had been impressed on the card made by the 
manufacturers, the card selected being generally, if 
not always, the ace of spades. But from and after the 
5th July, 1765, makers of playing-cards were required 
to send to the Stamp Office the paper on which the 
ace of spades was to be impressed. The Commis- 
sioners of Stamps were to print the duty aces of 
spades themselves, and had a plate prepared for the 
purpose, with a device somewhat similar to that in use 
up to 1863, only less elaborate. The Commissioners 
had the power of altering the device at pleasure, in 
order to throw difficulties in the way of counterfeiting 
it. The card-makers were further required to send to 
the office the wrappers which they proposed to use 
for enclosing the cards. The wrappers were to have 
the maker's name printed on them, and were to be 
stamped with, a sixpenny stamp. The stamp was 
not an additional duty. The duty still remained at 
one shilling : but the mode of imposition was varied, 
so that one half of the duty fell on the ace of spades, 
and the other half on the wrapper. At the same 
time, the penalty for refusing to allow inspection of 
premises where card-making was carried on, was 
raised from £20 to £50. 

Eleven years later an additional duty of sixpence a 
pack was levied, making the total duty one shilling 
and sixpence. 

In the mean time the ingenious enemies of the 
revenue had not been idle. The occupation of selling 



94 CARD ESSAYS. 



waste cards was gone ; but there was no prohibition 
against selling second-hand cards. Accordingly, the 
card-maker's waste was still sorted into packs, which 
were disposed of as second-hand cards, ' ' to the great 
injury of the revenue." A penalty of £5 a pack was 
therefore imposed on any person selling second-hand 
cards, unless the backs of the picture cards were so 
marked as to render them unfit to be used in play. 

In 1789, and again in 1801, the duty was further 
increased by sixpenny steps, till it reached the sum of* 
half-a-crown a pack. The traffic in cards not duly 
stamped was powerfully stimulated by the high duty. 
Various evasive devices were invented, and more than 
one speculator amassed a large fortune by selling, 
under various pretences, cards on which no duty had 
been paid. . Under the then arrangements, waste aces 
of spades could not be procured to any great extent, 
for the damaged aces were returned to the Stamp 
Office, and allowed for in the card-maker's accounts. 
Packs, therefore, were made up for sale with a blank 
card in place of the ace of spades. Cut-corner cards, 
as they were called, i. e., packs of cards of which one 
corner was cut off, and minus the ace of spades, were 
sold in immense quantities. Cards with a corner cut 
off, half an inch in depth, were considered by Parlia- 
ment sufficiently mutilated to render them unfit to be 
used in play. The public, however, put up with the 
inconvenience of using cut-corner cards rather than 
pay the high tax. In fact, the law was found power- 
less to prevent evasions ; every fresh enactment 
produced some fresh dodge for driving through it. 
It was therefore decided to diminish the duty, and to 
legalize, under certain restrictions, the sale of second- 



CARD ESSAYS. 95 



hand cards. In the year 18.28, the half-a-crown duty 
was reduced to one shilling. The shilling duty was 
to be denoted on the ace of spades. This was the 
"duty one shilling'' ace, called "Old Frizzle," on 
account of the elaborate flourishes which adorned it, 
with which all card-players, prior to 1864, were 
familiar. The aces were supplied on credit to the 
card-makers, the duty being exacted* from time to 
time on their making up their packs for sale, when an 
officer had to attend to put on the wrappers, and to 
take an account of the numbers. Second-hand cards 
were permitted to be sold, except by licensed card- 
makers, provided the words "second-hand cards" 
were legibly printed or written on the wrapper. 

Under the protection of this permission the sale of 
so-called second-hand cards flourished more vigor- 
ously than ever. The less scrupulous manufacturers 
used to make "works " of waste by the ton, for the 
purpose of sale under the name of second-hand cards. 
Indeed the clandestine manufacture of cards sold as 
second-hand was so extensive, that one person alone 
" owned to the sale of more unstamped packs in one 
year than the whole number which, according to the 
revenue returns, had been charged with duty in the 
same period, that is to say, upwards of 260,000 packs." 
Consequently, by 25 Vict. (June, 1862) the duty 
was fixed at three-pence per pack, the alteration 
to commence on 1st September, 1862. The financial 
year ends 31st March, therefore in 1862, half the year 
the duty was one shilling, the other half three-pence. 
In the seventh Report of the Commissioners of Her 
Majesty's Inland Revenue, 1863, it is stated that the 
alteration from one shilling to three-pence was made 



96 CARD ESSAYS' 



" in the hope of suppressing the enormous evasion of 
the duty which notoriously prevailed." At the same 
time that the amount was reduced, the form in which 
the duty was levied was altered. Several other 
reasons for the alteration are given in the Report. 
The Commissioners remark that "there were many 
disadvantages connected with these arrangements,' ' 
[i.e., with the arrangements which prevailed prior to 
1863.] The principal disadvantages were the expense 
incurred in printing the aces, and the difficulty of ad- 
justing the card-makers' accounts. The card-makers 
were always in arrear ; they always had more aces 
supplied than were accounted for in the packs made 
up for sale ; and though the department had the 
power of taking an account of the stock not made up 
for sale, and held by the card-makers, and of charging 
for aces not accounted for, the power was but oc- 
casionally exercised, on account of the practical 
difficulty of taking exact stock without serious incon- 
venience to the makers. Moreover, when stock was 
taken, a deficiency of aces always appeared, even 
with the most respectable makers, who were above 
the suspicion of intentionally defrauding the revenue. 
This deficiency was, in many instances, allowed to 
stand over, so that in practice the amount thus owing 
was as good as remitted. 

According to the statement of the Commissioners, 
it appeared that, " from the mode in which the ace 
of spades was necessarily prepared at the office, that 
important card was always different from the rest of 
the pack, and that this difference, though slight, was 
to those who were aware of it, readily perceptible by 
the touch," so that, in fact, the duty, "which was 



CARD ESSAYS. 97 



meant to be pro tanto a discouragement to gambling, 
was abetting the designs of the card sharper." 

The difference here alluded to is as to the size of 
the card ; this might have been the case with small 
makers using imperfect machinery ; but manufac- 
turers of repute, who could properly manipulate the 
cards, were able to turnout the ace of spades precisely 
like the other cards as to size, thickness, and feel. 

The idea that the duty was meant to discourage 
gambling is purely imaginary. It was meant simply 
to increase the revenue in aid of Her Majesty's " oc- 
casions ; " and as was well pointed out in the petition 
presented to Parliament in the reign of Queen Anne, 
a tax only hinders the common sort who play for 
innocent diversion, and not sharp gamesters who play 
for many pounds a game. 

Under the present system the ace of spades is free 
from duty, and is printed by the manufacturers in the 
same way as the other cards. The duty is now levied 
on the seal or wrapper in which each pack must be 
enclosed before it is sold ; and the duty applies to all 
full-sized playing-cards, whether new or secondhand. 
The wrappers are supplied from Somerset House as 
the card-makers require them, and have the name of 
tlie manufacturer printed on them. 

Thus : suppose a new pack is opened and, as is the 
case at most clubs, is used only once. Under the old 
law the soiled pack was exempt from further duty if 
the words " second-hand cards " were legible written 
or printed on the wrapper. Now, however, second- 
hand cards before being resold must be enclosed in 
a fresh wrapper and pay a second duty. 

In 18G1 the amount of dutv received at one shilling 
7 



98 CARD ESSAYS. 



a pack was £14,533, 290,660 packs being sealed. In 
1862 — mostly at one shilling, but a small part at three- 
pence — the duty produced £13,637, notwithstanding 
that about 160,000 more packs were sealed than before. 
When the new regime came into full operation in 
1863,732,960 packs were sealed, a very large increase 
when compared with the number stamped under the 
old regime. Nevertheless, the receipts, owing to the 
reduction, amounted only to £9,162, entailing a loss 
of about £4,450. After 1867, however, the number 
of packs sealed steadily increased, to 737,120, 813,920, 
968,800, and so on ; and in 1873 the number stamped 
was over a million. In 1877-78 the duty rose to £14, 
139, so that at the present time the smaller duty pro- 
duces as much as the larger one did within a few 
pounds. And what is highly satisfactory is that there 
is no reason for supposing that there is now any 
evasion of the duty. 



CARD ESSAYS. 99 



M0LIERE ON PIQUET. 



" Come, you shall sit down to piquet." 

— School for Scandal, Act i., sc. %. 



Moliere, like our Shakespeare, seems to have had 
a universal knowledge. Whatever he wrote about 
he probed, as it were, to the bottom. Among other 
things he must have had a profound knowledge of 
Piquet, or must have obtained his information from 
players of a very superior class, as the following ex- 
ample will demonstrate. 

In the year 1661 appeared the comedy of " Les 
Facheux." This play contains a somewhat remark- 
able Piquet hand, which is interesting as showing 
that Piquet was at that time a popular game in 
France, and also as illustrating the mode in which 
the game was then played, and, further, as affording 
room for instructive comment. The following is a 
free translation of the passage relating to Piquet : — 

• " Console me, Marquis, for the extraordinary partie 
at Piquet I lost yesterday against St. Bouvain, a man 
to whom I could deal and give fifteen points. It is 
a maddening coup which crushes me, and which 
makes me wish all players at the devil ; — a coup 



100 CARD ESSAYS. 



enough to make a man go and hang himself. I only 
wanted two points ; he required a pique. I dealt ; 
he proposed a fresh deal. I, having pretty good cards 
in all suits, refused. He takes six cards. Now ob- 
serve my bad luck : I carry ace of clubs ; ace, king, 
knave, ten, eight of hearts ; and throw out (as I 
considered it best to keep my point) , king, queen of 
diamonds, and queen, ten of spades. I took in the 
queen to my point, which made me a quint major. 
To my amazement, my adversary showed the ace and 
a sixieine minor in diamonds, the suit of which I had 
discarded king and queen. But, as he required a 
pique, I was not alarmed, expecting to make at 
least two points in , play. In addition to his seven 
diamonds he had four spades, and, playing them, he 
put me to a card, for I did not know which of my 
aces to keep. I thought it best to throw the ace of 
hearts, but he had discarded all his four clubs, and 
capoted me with the six of hearts ! I was so vexed 
I could not say a word. Confound it ! why do I have 
such frightful luck ? " 

In order to render the hand intelligible, it is 
necessary to bear in mind that at the time " Les 
Facheux " was written Piquet was played with thirty- 
six cards, the sixes being included in the pack. There 
were twelve cards in the stock, instead of eight as 
now, of which the elder hand might take eight, the 
younger four. The cards below a ten did not count 
in play ; or rather, according to the " Academy of 
Play," " they sometimes tell one for every card they 
lead or win, whether a tenth card or not, so that 
when two players sit down, who are not acquainted 
with each other's play, it is customary to ask, 



CARD ESSAYS. 101 



Whether you count all the cards or not?" In the 
hand given the nines, eights, sevens, and sixes do not 
count in play. 

Moliere has skilfully heaped up the various small 
worries that may annoy an irritable player during a 
hand.. The score is one source of annoyance : St. 
Bouvain wants a pique, Alcippe (his adversary) only 
wants two, and has such cards that, though a pique 
is not impossible it is in the highest degree improbable. 
As Fielding ("Tom Jones") truly remarks, "The 
gamester who loses a party at Piquet by a single 
point, laments his bad luck ten times as much as he 
who never came within a prospect of the game." 
Again, Alcippe has the chance offered him of a fresh 
deal, which implies that his adversary has very bad 
cards — so bad, that he deems losing next door to 
certain. The fresh deal is refused, and, notwith- 
standing, St. Bouvain wins. Then the elder hand, 
having the right to take eight cards, only takes six, 
which is a disagreeable surprise after proposing a 
fresh deal, as Alcippe would naturally wonder how it 
could be that, notwithstanding the bad hand, St. 
Bouvain can afford to leave two cards ; and, lastly, 
Alcippe is put to a card, which is by no means 
pleasant at any time, but is most unpleasant of all 
when you have two aces and require one trick only to 
win, and must lose if you keep the wrong one. An 
imaginative reader, too, might discover another 
aggravation. Alcippe, though he declares he lost by 
bad luck, really loses by bad play (as will be 
presently shown), and he expresses his intention, 
in a passage not translated, of going about showing 
the hand to everybody. It will certainly happen that 



102 CARD ESSAYS. 



some ' 'good-natured friend " will point out to him in 
a day or two how he might have won. 

Let us point the moral of the hand by taking the 
office of that friend. In order to do so, it will 
be advisable to follow the plan adopted by Dr. Pole 
in the case of Belinda's celebrated hand at Ombre, 
viz., to set out all the cards, supplying those not 
named by Moliere, in the most probable combinations 
suitable to the hand. 

St. Bouvain's hand, then, would be sixieme minor 
in diamonds (i. e., knave, ten, nine, eight, seven, six); 
four clubs, say king, queen, nine, seven ; and nine, 
seven of hearts. He discards the four clubs and the 
two hearts, keeping his sixieme, and takes in the ace 
of diamonds, the six of hearts, and four of spades, say 
the ace, king, knave, and eight. 

Alcippe deals himself king, queen of diamonds; 
queen, ten of spades ; ace, king, knave, ten, eight of 
hearts ; and three clubs, say ace, knave, eight. The 
knave and eight are given that there may be no tierce 
against him in this suit ; this seems to be intended, as 
the Author, with probably the same object, gives him 
the eight of hearts. Also Alcippe must not hold a 
trio of kings, queens or tens, or he wins, as any trio is 
good ; consequently his clubs must be knave and 
eight. In addition, the knave of clubs in his hand 
prevents his adversary from holding a trio. He 
discards the diamonds, spades, and knave, eight of 
clubs, and takes in nine, seven, six of spades, queen 
of hearts, and ten, six of clubs, 

The hand is then played, with the following result : 
St. Bouvain's point and sixieme are good for twenty- 
three ; three counting diamonds played make twenty- 



CARD ESSAYS. 103 



six, and three counting spades, twenty-nine. St. 
Bouvain has now played seven diamonds and four 
spades, eleven cards, and remains with one card, the 
six of hearts ; Alcippe remains with ace of hearts and 
ace of clubs, and he has to play one of these to the 
last spade led by St. Bouvain. Alcippe plays the 
heart, and St. Bouvain, winning the trick with his 
last card, six of hearts, counts one for the last trick, 
which he would not have counted had he lost the 
trick ; and he piques and capots his opponent. The 
capot which wins the game would suffice without the 
pique, supposing St. Bouvain to have taken in only 
two counting spades ; and, indeed this is the expla- 
nation of the hand given by the French commentators. 
But it appears more probable that this is not the 
result intended by Moliere. He carefully states that 
the queen, ten of spades were discarded by Alcippe, 
leaving us to infer that St. Bouvain may hold three 
counting spades. Moliere makes Alcippe repeat that 
there is no pique against him, and yet he is piqued 
after all — an additional grievance, although it does 
not affect the result. 

It is obvious that St. Bouvain plays the hand fault- 
lessly, and it is equally clear that Alcippe (notwith- 
standing lus boast of superior play), loses the game 
by not discarding to the score, as no doubt the good- 
natured friend already alluded to sooner or later 
points out to him. If he discards properly he must 
make two points, unless his adversary carries all the 
diamonds, and either the quart-minor in spades with 
the ace, or a tierce in spades with ace, king ; and 
3ven then Alcippe may win with a trio of kings or 
queens. The chance that Alcippe will take in any of 



104 CARD ESSAYS. 



the diamonds, or any one of the spades, or the king 
of clubs, or the queen of hearts, in six cards ({. e. one 
of sixteen named cards out of twenty-four), is so 
enormously in his favor, that he would be justified 
in considering there is no pique against him. His 
game then, playing for two points, is simply to protect 
himself from a capot by keeping guards to his weak 
suits, and throwing out his point, which at this score 
is useless to him. If he discards ace, knave, ten, eight 
of hearts, and knave, eight of clubs, he is morally 
certain to win. This is a good illustration of discard- 
ing to the score, and affords a lesson to beginners at 
Piquet. It will be observed that the ace of hearts is 
discarded instead of the king, for this reason. Any 
ace taken in wins the game, whether the trio of aces 
is kept or not; but the king of clubs, or king of 
spades taken in does not win against a seven-card 
suit in diamonds, and ace with quart-minor in spades, 
or ace, king, accompanied by a tierce in spades, unless 
the kings are kept. 

Alcippe again plays badly in throwing the ace of 
hearts to the last spade. Had he gone on the chances, 
he would have won. It is evident that, in order to 
save the game, St. Bouvain's last card must be anon- 
counting card ; for St. Bouvain, having twenty-nine 
and the lead, gains a pique if his remaining card is a 
counting card, because the point made in play by the 
leader counts before the point made in play by the 
winner of the trick. Now St. Bouvain may hold one 
or three non-counting hearts, viz., the nine, the sevep 
or the six ; but he can only hold one of two non- 
counting clubs, viz., the nine or the seven. This being 
so, there are three chances to two in favor of his last 



CARD ESSAYS. 105 



card being a non-counting heart as against a non- 
counting club ; and, therefore, Alcippe should keep 
the heart in preference to the club. This is a point 
in the game well worthy of attention, as if it were not 
essential for St. Bouvain's last card to be a non- 
counting card, the club would be the suit to keep, 
there being four clubs out and only three hearts. 



106 CARD ESS ATS. 



THE DUFFER'S WHIST MAXIMS. 



1 Printed for the benefit of families, and to prevent scolding. ' ' 

—Bob Short. 



1 . Do not confuse your mind by reading a parcel 
of books. Surely you've a right to play your own 
game, if you like. Who are the peorple that wrote 
these books ? What business have they to set up 
their views as superior to yours ? Many of these 
writers lay down this rule : " Lead originally from 
your strongest suit ; " don't you do it unless it suits 
your hand. It may be good in some hands, but it 
doesn't follow that it should be in all. Lead a single 
card sometimes, or at any rate, from your weakest 
suit, so as to make your little trumps when the suit is 
'returned. By following this course in leads, you will 
nine times out of ten ruin both your own and your 
partner's hands ; but the tenth time you will perhaps 
make several little trumps, which would have been 
useless otherwise. In addition to this, if sometimes 
you lead from your strongest suit, and sometimes 
from your weakest, it puzzles the adversaries, and 
they never can tell what you have led from. 



CARD ESSAYS. 107 



2. Seldom return your partner's lead ; you have 
as many cards in your hand as he has, it is a free 
country, and why should you submit to his dictation? 
Play the suit you deem best; without regard to any 
preconceived theories. It is an excellent plan to lead 
out first one suit and then another. This mode of 
play is extremely perplexing to the whole table. If 
you have a fancy for books you will find this system 
approved by " J. C." He says, " You mystify alike 
your adversaries and your partner. You turn the 
game upside down, reduce it to one of chance, and, 
in the scramble, may have as good a chance as your 
neighbors. " 

3. Especially do not return your partner's lead in 
trumps, for not doing so, now and then turns out to 
be advantageous. Who knows but you may make a 
trump by holding up, which you certainly cannot do 
if your trumps are all out ? Never mind the fact that 
you will generally lose tricks by refusing to play 
your partner's game. Whenever you succeed in 
making a trump by your refusal, be sure to point out 
to your partner how fortunate it was that you played 
as you did. Perhaps your partner is a much better 
player than you, and he may on some former occasion, 
with an exceptional hand, have declined to return 
your lead of trumps. Make a note of this. Remind 
him of it if he complains of your neglecting to return 
his lead. It is an unanswerable argument. 

4. There are a lot of rules, to which, however, you 
need pay no attention, about leading from sequences. 
What can it matter which card of a sequence you 
lead ? The sequence cards are all of the same value, 
and one of them is as likely to win the trick as 



108 CARI> ESSAYS. 



another. Besides, if you look at the books, you'll 
find the writers don't even know their own minds. 
They advise in some cases that you should lead the 
highest, in others the lowest of the sequence ; and in 
leading from ace, king, queen, they actually recom- 
mend you to begin with the middle card. Any 
person of common sense must infer from this that it 
don't matter which card of a sequence you lead. 

5-. There are also a number of rules about the play 
of the second, third, and fourth hands, but they are 
quite unworthy serious consideration. The excep- 
tions are almost as numerous as the rules, so if you 
play by no rule at all you are about as likely to be 
right as wrong. 

6. Before leading trumps always first get rid of 
all the winning cards in your plain suit. You will 
not then be bothered with the lead after trumps are 
out, and you thus shift all the responsibility of mis- 
takes on to your partner. But, if your partner has 
led a suit, be careful when you lead trumps to keep 
in your hand the best card of his lead. By this 
means, if he goes on with his suit, you are more 
likely to get the lead after trumps are out,,which, the 
books say, is a great advantage. 

7. Take every opportunity of playing false cards, 
both high and low. For by deceiving all around you 
will now and then win an extra trick. It is often 
said, "Oh, but you deceive your partner." That is 
very true. But then, as you have two adversaries and 
only one partner, it is obvious that by running dark 
you play two to one in your own favor. Besides this, 
it is very gratifying, when your trick succeeds, to have 
taken in your opponents, and to have won the ap- 



CARD ESSAYS. 109 



plause of an ignorant gallery. If yon play in a 
common-place way, even your partner scarcely thanks 
you. Anybody could have done the same. 

8. Whatever you do, never attend to the score, and 
don't watch the fall of the cards. There is no earthly 
reason for doing either of these. As for the score, 
your object is to make as many as you can. The 
game is five, but, if you play to score six or seven, 
small blame to you. Never mind running the risk of 
not getting another chance of making even five. 
Keep as many pictures and winning cards as you 
can in your hand. They are pretty to look at, and if 
you remain with the best of each suit you effectually 
prevent the adversaries from bringing in a lot of 
small cards at the end of the hand. As to the fall 
of the cards, it is quite clear that it is of no use to 
watch them ; for, if everybody at the table is trying 
to deceive you, in accordance with Maxim 7, the less 
you notice the cards they play the less you will be 
taken in. 

9. Whenever you have ruined your hand and your 
partner's by playing in the way here recommended, 
you should always say that it " made no difference." 
It sometimes happens that it has made no difference, 
and then your excuse is clearly valid. And it will 
often happen that your partner does not care to argue 
the point with you, in which case your remark will 
make it clear to everybody that you have a profound 
insight into the game. If, however, your partner 
chooses to be disagreeable, and succeeds in proving 
you to be utterly ignorant of the first elements of 
Whist, stick to it that you played right, that good 
play will sometimes turn out unfortunately, and ac- 



110 CARD ESSAYS. 



cuse your partner of judging by results. This will 
generally silence him. 

10. Invariably blow up your partner at the end of 
every hand. It is not only a most gentlemanlike 
employment of spare time, but it gains you the 
reputation of being a first-rate player. 



CARD ESSATS. Ill 



DECISIONS 

OF 

THE LATE Mr. CLAY. 



ON THE PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD 
• GUIDE DECISIONS. 



"Is that the law? 

Thyself shalt see the act ; 
For, as thou urgest justice, be assured 
Thou shalt have justice." 

Merchant of Venice, Act rv., SO. I. 



It would hardly be fair to the memory of Mr. 
Clay to print the following Decisions without some 
preliminary explanation of the general principles 
which should be present to the mind of everyone 
who is likely to read them. 

There is a popular belief that card-laws are in- 
tended to prevent cheating. This belief, however, 
is altogether erroneous. The penalty of cheating is 
exclusion from Society. Card-laws cannot touch 
cheating, nor punish it. The intention of card-laws 
is : 1. To preserve the harmony and to determine the 
ordering of the card-table; and 2. To prevent any 
player from obtaining an unfair advantage. 



112 CARD ESSAYS. 



By " unfair" is not meant intentional unfairness. 
By accident or carelessness any player may gain an 
advantage to which he is not entitled. Here the law 
steps in, and seeks to prevent the gaining of such an 
advantage. And, be it observed, the law does not 
attempt to punish the accidental or careless offender, 
but only to obtain restitution. 

The above considerations lead at once to two 
fundamental principles on which card Decisions 
should be framed. 

1. As the offending player is credited with bona 
fides, the intention of the player interested must not 
be taken into account. The case must be judged by 
the amount of injury which the irregularity may in- 
flict on the opponents ; and 2. The penalty must be 
proportioned as closely as possible to the amount of 
gain which may accrue to the offender. 

For example : The dealer, by his own fault, ex- 
poses a card in dealing. Possibly the dealer has seen 
it, and the adversaries have not. They have a right 
to see it ; and they then have the option of a fresh 
deal. If they choose not to have a fresh deal, it is to 
be presumed they consider that, on the whole, the 
dealer and his partner will gain no advantage, or 
may even be at a disadvantage, if the position of the 
card in question is known. 

If the law were that the dealer loses his deal on 
exposing a card, that would be a punishment, as he 
would have to forego the advantage of the deal. By 
giving the adversaries the option of a fresh deal, they 
are protected from injury, and the dealer is not 
punished. 

The laws of Whist only afford one example of 



CARD ESSAYS. 113 



punishment, viz. : in the revoke penalty. The offence, 
however, is very gross, and there are practical diffi- 
culties in the way of adjusting the penalty, with 
precision, to the gain which might ensue in conse- 
quence of the revoke. 

In a perfect code there should be a penalty for all 
errors or irregularities by which the offender or his 
partner might profit. And it follows that there should 
be no penalty for errors by which he who commits 
them cannot possibly gain an advantage. But, as Mr. 
Clay says : — " However carefuify laws may have been 
framed, cases will not unfrequently occur for which 
it has been impossible to provide, and which should 
therefore be referred for decision to some player of 
recognized judgment, well acquainted with the laws 
of Whist. If he happens to be a good lawyer to boot, 
so much the better ; for I have known many questions 
at this game not unworthy of a lawyer's practised 
acuteness, and of the habit which his profession gives 
him of weighing right and wrong." 



Claiming Honors. 

Law 6. — Honors, unless claimed before the trump 
card of tiie following deal is turned up, cannot be 
scored. 

Case — A B claim "the game," and score it. After 
the trump card of the following deal is turned up 
Y Z (their adversaries) object that A B have not 
claimed honors. * 

Decision. — " It is necessary, and has always been 
the law by tradition, to make it obligatory to call 

8 



114 CARD ESSAYS. 



honors, as well as to score them, as points merely 
scored may easily escape notice. 

" It never, however, can have been intended to 
stretch the rule to such a case as this, in which, by 
claiming 'the game,' attention is as strongly drawn 
to the claim of honors as it well can be. 

" Such a claim can hardly have been made, except 
for the purpose of having the point decided, and, in 
spite of the strict letter of the law, I consider the 
claim bad. 

" Other cases may be found where the rigid inter- 
pretation of a necessary law would inflict a wholly 
unnecessary wrong ; but I know no case in which 
such interpretation has been insisted on. 

" If Y or Z had had any doubt about the honors, 
and if there had been no evidence beyond the asser- 
tion of his adversaries, the law would have protected 
him ; and he ought to require nothing more. 

" If Y or Z tells me that he was in no way called 
upon to admit the honors, I can only answer that 
this is a case between him and his conscience. I 
think he did right in making the admission, and have 
little doubt but that he will do the same on any 
other occasion. 

" In giving this opinion, not without hesitation, 1 
bear in mind the extreme general inconvenience of 
allowing any lax interpretation of a law." 

It should be stated, in order to explain the reason 
for the first and third paragraphs of the decision, 
that it was given very shortly after the adoption of 
the present code, and therefore before Law 6, as 
quoted above, was generally known. 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 115 



Misdirection by Adversaries. 

Case. — A, B, C are playing dummy, C having the 
dummy. 

It is dummy's deal. By mistake, C deals for him- 
self instead of for dummy, and turns up. Then 
seeing the trump card on the table, C says, " Whose 
is this ? " 

AB reply, "Dummy's," imagining C had dealt 
for his dummy. 

C then sorted dummy's hand, and placed the turn- 
up card with it. 

It was then discovered that dummy had fourteen 
cards, and C twelve. 

C then says, " Oh ! it is a misdeal." 

A B say, " No ; the mistake is obvious. Just put 
the turn-up card to your hand, and all will be right." 

It was decided by a bystander to be a misdeal, 
which was unfortunate for AB, as they had game in 
their hands. 

Was it a misdeal ? 

Decision. — " If it is allowed, or can be proved, 
that dummy's partner dealt, — whether in or out of 
his turn matters not, as the deal was completed with- 
out objection, — the deal is good. The trump card 
has been placed in one part of the table instead of 
another ; — voild tout. Everyone knows it, and it can 
be put in its right place, — before a card has been 
played, — without inconvenience. 

" This is all the more strong, in the present case, 
as the card was wrongly placed in consequence of the 
mistaken intimation of the adversary. 

if Strictly, perhaps, the dealer ought not to have 



116 CLAY'S DECISIONS. 



asked his adversary to help him, but should have 
thought over the puzzle himself, which he would 
probably have found out [by counting his cards] 
This gives the adversaries a right not to answer, but 
does not excuse them for answering wrongly." 

Card Jumping into Adversary's Hand. 

Case, — A, in taking up his cards, the deal being 
completed, bends a card so that it jumps on Y's (the 
adversary's) packet. At that moment Y takes up his 
hand, and mixes the card with it, so that no one can 
tell which is the added card. 

What is to be done ? 

Decision. — "This is one of those queer cases, — 
assisted by no analogy which occurs to me, — which 
can only be the subject of what I should call a fancy 
decision. 

" I agree with you [the Author had already given 
his opinion] that the dealer must not suffer by an 
irregularity which had its origin in an adversary. 
Nor can I acquit Y of some carelessness ; and I think 
that justice is satisfied by A's drawing a card at 
hazard from Y's hand. 

If A had been the dealer's partner, I should give 
the choice of a new deal to his adversaries. They 
electing to stand the deal, before seeing their cards, a 
card to be drawn at hazard. The cards seen, nothing 
remains, I think, but to draw one." 

It should be added, for the benefit of those not con- 
versant with the laws of Whist, that taking up the 
cards is always considered, w deciding cases, as equiv- 
alent to seeing them. 



CLAY'S decisions. 117 



Declaring a Card, but Omitting to Play it 

Law 69. — If any one omit playing to a former 
trick, and such error be not discovered until lie has 
played to the next, the adversaries may claim a new 
deal ; should they decide that the deal stands good, 
the surplus card at the end of the hand is considered 
to have been played to the imperfect trick, but does 
not constitute a revoke therein. 

Case. — A B versus Y Z. A leads a heart ; Y plays 
knave; B calls out " king," but does not play any 
card ; Z plays a small heart. 

B, takes up, turns and quits the trick, consisting of 
three cards, and leads another card. Two or three 
tricks are played, and then another heart is led, and 
B plays the king, when it is discovered that B., 
having declared the king, omitted to play it. 

What is the rule ? 

Decision. — The case was, in the first instance, sub- 
mitted to the Author, who decided as follows : — 

On discovery of the error, B must add the king to 
the imperfect trick. The words " at the end of the 
hand " in Law 69, do not signify that B must wait 
till the end of the hand before rectifying his error ; 
but amount merely to a direction what is to be done 
with the surplus card if the hand is played out before 
the error is discovered. Or, it may be, and generally 
would be, that the player omitting to play to a trick, 
does not declare a card ; in that case, the surplus 
card cannot be added till the end of the hand, because 
no one can say which of the offender's cards is to be 
subtracted from his hand. 



118 CLAY'S DECISIONS. 

It might be argued that declaring a card is equiv- 
alent to playing it, and that, therefore, B has not 
omitted to play to a trick. But, looking at the con- 
sequences that might ensue if players were allowed to 
declare their cards, instead of playing them, I think 
a person declaring a card and not playing it, does 
omit to play to a trick within the meaning of Law 69, 
and that the adversaries have the option of a fresh 
deal. 

The Author's decision was objected to by a player 
for whose opinion he entertained a high regard. 
Consequently, he submitted the case to Clay, who 
favored him with the decision below : — 

" I quite agree with your decision in this case, viz. : 
that Y Z have a right to elect whether the deal shall 
stand or not, and that, if they decide to go on, the 
king of hearts should be added to the imperfect trick. 

" It seems that this decision is challenged, and that 
the objection made to it is thus expressed : — ' Either 
B has omitted to play to the trick or he has not, and 
it ought to be in the option of the adversaries to de- 
cide this. If they decide that B has not omitted to 
play to the trick, the king of hearts is to be added to 
the trick to which it belongs, and no further penalty 
remains. On the other hand, if the adversaries decide 
that B has omitted to play to the trick, they can call 
a fresh deal. If they elect to stand the deal, then B 
must play out the hand with a surplus card, the 
card at the end belonging to the imperfect trick, as 
enacted in Law 69.' The objection is ingenious, but 
fails to convince me. Law 69 contemplated that 
which would almost invariably be the case in such 
an error as this, namely, that it would not be found 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 1X9 

out until the end of the hand. But as, in this 
instance, the error is early detected, and is of very 
easy remedy, it seems unnecessarily pedantic to 
abandon the remedy in deference to the letter of a 
law which could not contemplate this particular case. 

" Your critic proposes, to my mind, an insufficient 
punishment ; nor can Y Z, by their election, decide 
that there has been no omission. They cannot alter 
the fact, and it is beyond doubt that there has been 
omission. Availing themselves of the general prin- 
ciple, which allows considerable latitude in construing 
an act as against an offender, they decide that this 
imperfect act of playing shall be deemed a perfect 
act. But they do more ; — they have a common-sense 
right to do more ; — indeed, they are bound in com- 
mon-sense to do more ; they take care that the imper- 
fect act of playing is made perfect, and they place the 
king of hearts in the trick to which it belonged from 
the moment of the declaration to play it. 

" If this be not so, observe what may happen. To 
adopt the form of your critic, either the trick with 
three cards in it is complete, or it is not. YZ, by con- 
tinuing the play of the hand, have decided that the 
trick is complete ; therefore, the king of hearts has 
taken a trick ; the suit is played again, and the king 
of hearts takes a second trick. It seems to me im- 
possible that this can be permitted knowingly ; and 
if in your decision there be, — which I do not admit, — 
some difficulty or defective logic, as suggested by your 
critic, it would be, to my thinking, quite worth while 
to ride over it, in order to avoid the possible occur- 
rence of an absurdity so monstrous as that which I 
have described. Two tricks taken by one card ! A 



120 CLAY'S decisions. 

trick, notoriously imperfect, taken as perfect in one 
sense and imperfect in another ! The ownership of a 
trick to remain unnecessarily in abeyance until a sur- 
plus card, the existence of which everyone knows, 
and could have prevented, is found at the end of the 
hand ! This surplus card possibly being an advan- 
tage to a wrong doer ! All this cumbrous rubbish 
is cleared away by your very simple and sensible 
decision. 

" I should have more to .say, but that I foresee that 
it would raise a more important question, which I 
would rather not stir." 

What this more important question is can now 
never be known. No doubt Clay did not care to 
spend the requisite time over card decisions, as he 
was fully occupied and wrote under pressure. The 
original of this decision is written by an amanuensis, 
to whom, the Author believes, Clay dictated it while 
he was dressing, that being the only moment he could 
spare. 

The Author can hardly help feeling that the more 
important question was probably whether a surplus 
card added to an imperfect trick at the end of a hand 
can win the trick. In his decision Clay seems to as- 
sume that it can. It is a point of extreme difficulty ; 
on the whole, the Author is of opinion that it cannot 
(see The Field of February 27th, 1875), though at the 
time the case of declaring a card but omitting to play 
it was submitted to him (December, 1866.) he thought 
it could. 

Clay's decision on the original case was much can- 
vassed at the time ; but finally it was generally al- 
lowed to be sound. 



clay's decisions. 121 



Penalty for Renouncing in Error with 
more than one card. 

Law 76. — -If a player discover his mistake [of not 
following suit when able,] in time to save a revoke, 
the adversaries, whenever they think fit, may call the 
card thus played in error, or may require him to play 
his highest or lowest card to that trick in which he 
has renounced. 

Case. — In playing to a trick, A plays two cards 
together, neither being of the suit led. Before a re- 
voke is established A finds that he can follow suit. 
He is then required by his adversaries to play his 
highest card of the suit led. Can A then take up 
both the cards played in error ? 

It was argued that according to Law 76, A can only 
take up one card, and must leave the other to be 
called. If this contention holds, the question arises, 
Which of the two cards is A entitled to take up ? 

It is further pointed out, that if the word " card " 
in Law 76 is to be construed as " card or cards," then 
A might play in a packet every card in his hand, not 
of the suit led, and on being required to play his 
highest or lowest of the suit led, might take up all 
the cards played in error, when the penalty would 
be insufficient. 

Decision. — " I feel that Law 76 meets the case, 
Either the exposed cards can be called, or the highest 
or lowest of the suit led." 

This decision does not, in words, meet the objection 
that in the case of the playing of several cards 



122 CLAYS DECISIONS. 

together, calling the highest or lowest of the suit led 
is an insufficient penalty. 

Probably Clay hardly thought it worth while to 
combat this objection. The reply is evident. The 
adversaries have the option of calling all the cards 
played together, or of calling the highest or lowest of 
the suit led. They will naturally elect the penalty 
which they deem the more severe. 

If it were to their advantage to call all the exposed 
cards, they then simply allow the offender to play 
whichever card he pleases to the current trick. 

Clay's decision was much canvassed at the time, 
and it was questioned whether he had the right to 
make a verbal alteration in Law 76, and to read the 
words "the card played in error," as "the cards 
played in error." 

On carefully considering this point, the Author is 
of opinion that Clay's decision is correct. It disposes 
of all difficulties (as, for example, of the question 
which of the cards is to be deemed played to the 
trick), and cuts the knot simply and effectually. 



Disputed Bet on the Odd Trick. 

Case. — A bets B that B will not get the odd trick. 
B is the dealer, and makes a misdeal. 

A claims the bet, on the ground that B did not get 
the odd trick. 

Decision. — Clay wrote, " I am of opinion that the 
bet is off." In this view he was supported by several 
members of the Whist Laws Committee of the Port- 
land Club of 1864. 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 123 

Another member of that Committee, Major Adams, 
wrote, " My opinion is that A has no right to claim 
the bet. Considered on equitable grounds, he would 
have the option of claiming the continuation of the 
bet, after B has forfeited his deal." 

Clay's opinion clearly assumes that the bet was 
made not on the next odd trick, but on the result of 
the deal in progress ; and, that deal having proved 
abortive, the bet is null and void. 

The referees were unanimous that A does not win : 
for the fact of B's making a misdeal does not lose 
him the odd trick. If it did, and B's adversaries 
were at four. B would lose the game, which is absurd, 
B cannot lose, nor can A win, until an odd trick has 
been played for. 

The question then resolves itself into this : — Is the 
bet off, or is it decided by the result of the next 
deal? 

In the Author's judgment, the case can only be 
decided on a report of the exact words made use of 
when the bet was proposed and accepted. Assum- 
ing, as the case is stated, that the exact words made 
use of are quoted, the Author would hold that the 
bet is on the next odd trick, irrespective of w T hose 
deal it is. B, when he has the deal, backs himself 
to win the odd trick. If he misdeals it is his fault, 
and the Author cannot see that his misdealing ought 
to relieve him of the bet. if the terms of the bet iiad 
been " I back the deal for the trick," and the dealer 
misdeals, the bet is off, as the deal on which the bet 
was made was never completed, and consequently 
the result of it can never be ascertained. 



124 CliAY'S DECISIONS. 



Time for Correcting a Renounce in Error. 

Law 85. — Anyone during the play of a trick, or 
after the four cards are played, and before, but not 
after, they are touched for the purpose of gathering 
them together, may demand that the cards be placed 
before their respective players. 

LAWS 73 and 76. — A revoke is established if the 
trick in which it occurs be turned and quitted. 

If a player discover his mistake in time to save a 
revoke, the adversaries may call the card played in 
error, or may require him to play [i. e., to follow suit 
with] his highest or lowest card. 

Case. — A B are partners against Y Z. Y leads, the 
others play, one or more of them not following suit. 
B wins the trick, and A gathers it ; but, before turn- 
ing it, feeling uncertain whether he has renounced or 
not, says, " Partner, what was led ? " 

Y Z object that, under Law 85, A is too late, the 
trick being gathered, and consequently that the ques- 
tion must not be replied to. 

Decision. — On the case being referred to the Author, 
he decided that the question was put in an improper 
form. A has no right to ask what was led (i.e., what 
card was led), but, being in time to save a revoke, he 
is entitled to be informed what suit was led. If Y Z 
are bond fide under the impression that A wishes a 
card to be placed, they may object that he is too late. 
But on A's explaining that he only desires to ascer- 
tain whether he has followed suit, Y Z are bound to 
permit A to be informed as to the suit led. 



CIjAY'S decisions. 125 

To this it was objected that, the cards plf red being 
of different suits, A, toy being informed what suit was 
led, and knowing who had won the trick, would (or 
might) hence obtain the same information as though 
the cards were placed. This is true ; but the Author 
maintained that it does not invalidate A's right to 
save a revoke, if in the course of obtaining informa- 
tion in order to avoid the revoke penalty he gains 
collateral information to which he is not directly 
entitled. 

The Author's correspondents not being satisfied, he 
had recourse to Clay, who wrote as follows : — 

MI have no doubt your decision is correct. The 
ground for my opinion is that the laws have always 
been veiy tender in respect of revokes, the mistake 
being of easy occurrence, and the penalty very severe. 
There is, no doubt, no law strictly applicable to this 
particular case ; nor can there be a special law for 
the many similar cases which may easily occur ; but 
the case is clearly within the indulgence which the 
law extends to revokes." 



Disputed Misdeal. 

Law 44. — It is a misdeal [i.e., the dealer loses his 
deal] should the dealer deal two cards at once, or two 
cards to the same hand, and then deal a third. 

Law 37. — There must be a new deal [i.e., the same 
dealer deals again] if any card excepting the last be 
faced in the pack. 



126 CLAY'S DECISIONS. 

Case. — The dealer deals, or is alleged to have dealt, 
two cards to one hand, and one to the next hand, 
and the adversaries claim a misdeal. The dealer 
denies having dealt two cards together, and, as no 
one is allowed to count the cards during a deal, he 
continues his deal. He then comes to a faced card, 
and claims a fresh deal. 

What is the law ? 

Decision. — The case was sent to the Author, who 
decided that the deal is only allowed to proceed in 
order to settle a question of fact, by seeing, at the end 
of the hand, whether the cards come right. The 
appearance of the faced card puts an end to the deal, 
and the adversaries are thus baulked of one mode of 
establishing the fact of a misdeal. But they cannot 
be thereby estopped from any other satisfactory mode 
of proof. They are at liberty, after the deal is put an 
end to by the appearance of the faced card, to count 
the hands, and if one hand has a card too many they 
prove the fact alleged, and establish a misdeal. 

This ruling was not approved of, as appears from 
the letter which follows : — 

" Will you kindly grant a rehearing of the case ? 
I argue that, from there being a faced card in the 
pack, the deal is absolutely and ab initio void, and 
not only voidable. It is void for all purposes, as 
well for establishing a misdeal as for making a valid 
deal, and was void at the moment the misdeal was 
made." 

On receiving this the Author, as he always did when 
in difficulties, resorted to Clay. Clay wrote : — 

"The case of misdeal is curious, but I am not 
shaken in my opinion [by the letter forwarded]. The 



• clay's decisions. 127 

cards, to my thinking, must be taken to be in every 
respect right until proved to be wrong. The dealer 
forfeits the deal previous to any such proof, and, in a 
similar case, a player dishonestly inclined might face 
a card in the pack in order to avoid forfeiture which 
he knows himself to have incurred. 

" Your answer is perfect and lawyer-like. ,, 



CONSULTATION BETWEEN PARTNERS. 

Law 84. — Where a player and his partner have an 
option of exacting from t^eir adversaries one of two 
penalties, they should agree who is to make the elec- 
tion, but must not consult with one another which 
of the two penalties it is advisable to exact ; if they 
do so consult they lose their right [to demand any 
penalty]. 

Law 62. — If any player lead out of turn, his adver- 
saries may either call the card erroneously led, or 
may call a suit. 

Case. — A leads out of turn. T (an adversary) says 
to his partner, " ShalJ we call a suit ? " Y's partner 
makes no answer. A says "You have consulted." 
Y denies that it is a consultation, as his partner made 
no answer. 

Decision. — "Y has 'consulted' his partner. An 
answer is not necessary to make a consultation, but 
if it were, silence is an answer.. The knowledge that 
his partner is indifferent might have been of value to 
Y, and might have been precisely the kind of knowl- 
edge that he had no right to extract ' ' 



clay's decisions. 



Rubber Paid for when Not Won. 

Case. — A B play against Y Z. AB win a single. 
Only one game is played. Y Z say, "We lose four 
points." Four points are paid, and two of the players 
cut out. Presently it is discovered that Y Z have 
only lost one game. A B admit the fact, and offer 
to play out the rubber on the first convenient oppor- 
tunity. 

The case happened in this way. A single was left 
up by mistake from the previous rubber. The first 
game of the following rubber was a very long one, 
and, at its conclusion, A B innocently received the 
points as though they had won the rubber. 

Ought A B's offer to reopen the rubber to be ac- 
cepted ? 

Decision. — The Author answered his correspondent 
to the following effect : — 

It is too late to reopen the rubber. Y Z could 
scarcely avail themselves of A B's offer without intro- 
ducing a give-and-take system, which is sure to end 
unsatisfactorily. However hard the case, play the 
strict game. Extreme inconvenience would result if 
the rule were that rubbers once concluded could be 
reopened. Fancy being reminded that the day before 
yesterday you marked honors when not entitled, and 
that you won the rubber in consequence, and then 
being requested to sit down and play it out I 

The above decision was by no means generally 
agreed to. Several players of repute thought that A 
B's offer ought to be accepted. 

Under these circumstances the Author sent the case 



CLAY S DECISIONS. 129 

to Clay, with the request, " Will you be so good as to 
give your opinion whether Y Z should accept A B's 
offer or not ? " 

Clay wrote : — 

<( YZ appear to make, — and can have, — no claim. 
The question put to me is one of morals, not of law. 

"It may be that my moral perceptions are less 
acute than my legislative instincts. At any rate, I 
shall not find fault with Y Z whether they accept or 
refuse the offer made to them. 

" In my own case I did decline with thanks the 
courteous proposal of A B, on the ground that the 
original mistake was mine, and that 1 was content to 
pay for it." 



Player called on Not to Win the Trick. 

Case. — A leads a small heart; Y plays a small 
one ; B plays the ten ; Z (fourth hand) says " Small 
one." 

A (suspecting that Z has made a mistake, and that 
he can win the ten), says, " Don't win it." 

Is A entitled to this penalty ? 

Decision. — u Of course Z would have done better to 
play his card in the usual way, and to say nothing 
about it. 

"Equally, of course, although the definition of a 
1 small one ' is no where laid down, it must be taken 
in this case to mean a lower card than the ten. Still 
the term is so vague, and the observation so much in 

9 



130 CLAY'S DECISIONS. 

accord with things constantly, if carelessly, said at 
whist, that, if cases like this are to be punished, the 
game would become a painful labor. 

" The advantage to be gained by Z's partner is too 
small to call for severity, for if Z, after his observa- 
tion, should take the trick, he cannot be sure that Z 
had not mistaken the suit on the table when he made 
his observation, and this indeed would be the most 
likely explanation of it. 

" Supposing this to have been so, and Z cannot 
help taking the trick, what is to be done then ? 

"Many other inconveniences are also possible from 
an imposition in this case. 

"Take the following. A friend of mine, — a very 
charming player, but of a jocose disposition, — is con- 
stantly in the habit, when his adversary plays a king, 
of saying, before playing his own card, — ' I have a 
small one for that,' and thereupon produces the ace. 
Are you to pounce upon him, directly he has fired off 
his little joke, and say, " Don't take the trick ? ' 

" On the whole, therefore. I am of opinion, that A 
cannot claim his penalty ; though I am somewhat 
reluctant to give an opinion, which may appear to 
sanction some laxity." 

When Clay first sent the Author this decision, he 
was rash enough to dissent from it. Indeed, the case 
is admitted by Clay himself to be one of doubt, for he 
wrote elsewhere, ' ' I made up my mind the other way 
about this case yesterday, but on further thought 
have altered my opinion." 

More experience in deciding cases, has convinced 
the Author that Clay's decision, as printed above, is 
right. 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 131 



Disputed Revoke. 

Case, — A takes the twelfth trick by trumping, and 
claims game. The adversaries admit the claim and 
throw down their cards. A lowers his remaining 
card, but does not quit it. The adversaries then ob- 
serve that A could have followed suit to the previous 
trick, and claim a revoke. 

A pleads that as the trick is not turned and qurtted, 
and as neither he nor his partner has played again v 
he is in time to correct his error. 

Decision. — "The revoke is not complete. It of 
course makes no difference whether the mistake oc- 
curred in the last two cards or earlier in the hand. 

" In this case the adversary found out the mistake 
by seeing the card left in the claimant's hand. But I 
don't see that this makes any difference. The adver- 
sary should have been sharp enough not to find out 
the mistake until the claimant had done some act, — 
which he would have done in a few seconds, — com- 
pleting the revoke. 

" If I was in time to find out my own error, and 
correct it, the adversary cannot limit this time by 
finding out my mistake for me. 

"I attach no value to the last card being so ex- 
posed that any one could see it. 

" If the claimant had gone so far as to take down 
his score, and score up the game, 1 might consider 
the revoke complete. I don't feel sure." 



132 CLAY'S DECISION'S. 



Player Mixing a Trick with his Hand. 

Case. — A, having gathered a trick, instead of plac- 
ing it on the table before him, put it, in a fit of ab- 
sence, into his hand. 

What is the penalty ? 

Decision. — "The decision in this case conies under 
the class of fancy decisions, to which you can hardly 
apply any known law, and as to which it is not 
necessary to be pedantically strict, seeing that no man 
can repeat his offence, even occasionally, without 
coming under social penalties, which laws, such as 
ours, cannot lay down, — still less enforce. 

" I should, therefore, decide that, if the offender can 
establish by the assent of his adversaries, or by the 
evidence of bystanders, the four cards which he 
wrongfully took in his hand, he may be permitted to 
do so without penalty, and, for this purpose, he may 
be allowed to show, or name the cards, although 
they may be four of eight cards turned and quitted. 

11 If, however, his adversaries deny his accuracy, 
and he has no evidence to prove it, he must submit 
to the loss of the game. I see no other sufficient pen- 
alty, and serve him right for making such a — — 
muddle." 



Re Leading and Dealing Out of Turn. 

When the present Laws of Whist were under dis- 
cussion, Clay wrote to the Author as follows about 
the laws of leading and dealing out of turn. The 



clay's decisions. 133 

Author cannot call to mind precisely the original 
point, having unfortunately mislaid the letter : — 

" August 9, 1863. 

" Dear Jones, — I agree very nearly with all you 
say. Your principle that a man is bound to take 
reasonable care, — especially of his own property, — 
is in accordance with old and sound decisions. There 
are to my mind, however, a few exceptions, — where a 
trap may be so easily set that it requires unusual 
vigilance not to fall into it. 

** On this ground it is that I have always decided, 
— mind, in these cases there is practically no penalty 
for setting the trap, — that if a man leads out of his 
turn, the cards of those who follow him are not liable 
to be called. I suppose the case of leading a card 
which may be called and no harm done. 

" I think the dealing out of turn comes under t£us 
exception. If a man puts the cards in the wrong 
place it is 100 to 1 that he may deal out of his turn 
next time without being found out. 

1 * Yours very truly, 

" James Clay." 



Is a Lowered Hand Liable to be Called ? 

Law 56. — All exposed cards are liable to be called 
The following are exposed cards : — I. Two or more 
cards played at once. II. Any card dropped with 
its face upwards or in any way exposed on or above 
the table. 



134 clay's decisions. 



Law 58. — If a player, under the impression that 
game is lost or won, throws his cards on the table 
face upwards, such cards are exposed, and liable to 
be called. 

Law 60. — A card detached from the rest of the 
hand so as to be named, is liable to be called. 

The Author was looking on at Whist at the Port- 
land when his father, thinking the game could not 
be saved, lowered his cards and was about to throw 
them down, but his partner checked him, believing 
that the game might be saved, as in fact it might. It 
was admitted that everyone saw the lowered cards, 
and the adversaries thereupon required them to be 
laid on the table to be called. They were laid on the 
table, and called, and the game was lost. 

After it was all over, the Author told his father 
that he need not have submitted to the call, as there 
is no penalty for lowering the hand. This remark 
being overheard, a lively discussion ensued, and, 
thinking the case of some importance, the Author 
published his opinion in The Field. 

Little did he dream of the hornet's nest he had 
brought about his ears. (i Mogul," an excellent 
player and admirable judge of the laws, regarded 
his opinion as '* extraordinary." He thought that, if 
a man intending to let all the players see his cards, 
deliberately lowers them until clearly visible to all, 
they are exposed under the words of Law 56, par. II., 
" or in any way exposes them," and that the fact of 
the cards being retained in his hand does not alter 
the fact that the cards are exposed above the table. 
*' Mogul " held, therefore, that lowered cards are 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 135 

liable to be called, unless some other law distinctly 
says that cards held in the hand, though exposed* 
are not liable. 

" Mogul" also put these cases to demonstrate the 
absurdity of the Author's view : — A player holding 
six cards separates five of them and lowers them. 
These are detached cards, and can be called if named. 
But if he commits a greater offence, and shows all 
six cards together, by lowering his hand, none of 
them can be called. If, in fact, he lowers them one 
by one they can be called ; but not if he lowers them 
all together. 

Again, if a player says or implies that he has a card 
in his hand, it is constructively exposed, and can be 
called ; but when he actually shows it with the rest 
of his hand it cannot be called. 

"Lincoln's Inn," also an excellent judge of the 
game and of its laws, agreed with " Mogul," and 
added that he considered lowered cards to be cards 
exposed "above" the table. Also, that the words 
"in anyway exposed" must have a meaning; and 
the meaning he contended for is that these words 
apply to cards which are exposed otherwise than as 
specifically stated in the other clauses relating to 
exposure. 

To these arguments the Author replied as fol- 
lows :— 

The words "in any way exposed" do not define 
exposure. They merely state, in a roundabout way, 
that exposure is exposure. Melted butter is butter in 
any way melted ; an exposed ankle is an ankle in 
any way exposed ; and so exposed cards are cards in 
any way exposed. 



136 CARD ESSAYS. 



The word " above " is introduced to meet the case 
of a card which leaves the player's hand above the 
table, but is recovered by him before it touches the 
table, a case I have seen more than once. It has 
never been "on" the table, but has been, technically, 
exposed above it. 

The law having denned exposed cards as cards 
dropped face upwards on or above the table, says by 
implication that if cards are not dropped, but merely 
lowered without being abandoned, they are not tech- 
nically exposed ; and hence a lowered hand may be 
raised to its usual position without penalty. 

The reason the law does not seek to exact a penalty 
for lowering the hand is to my mind clear. To bring 
an offender within the pale of the law he must do 
some irregular act which can be clearly denned. For 
instance, he must drop a card, or detach a card. 
These are acts about which there can be no dispute 
as to the fact. But when it comes to be a question at 
what precise angle a man may or may not hold his 
cards (this question being involved in lowering the 
hand), the law, wisely as I think, determines not to 
interfere. Imagine the law to be that a player lower- 
ing his hand so that his partner can see it, is liable to 
have his cards called. Such a law would give rise to 
endless disputes as to whether the hand was so 
lowered that the partner could see the cards. 

The Author's opinion being much opposed, he 
sought, as usual, when criticised, to strengthen it by 
obtaining Clay's decision. Clay wrote as under : — 

1 ' You ask my opinion as to whether a player at 
Whist, holding his hand so low that it can be seen by 
the other players, is liable to have his cards called 



CARD ESSAYS. 137 



under the laws, whether, directly or by implication, 
which affect exposed cards. 

M Whether a hand so lowered as yon describe should 
be liable to be called, is a question which I have 
always considered very debatable. I was, however, 
and am still of opinion that these cards should not be 
treated as exposed cards, for the following reason : — 

" When the law inflicts any penalty for an offence 
at cards, it is desirable that the act to be punished 
should be clear and beyond doubt. Thus, for 
example, throwing down the cards on the table is an 
act as to which no dispute of fact can arise. So also, 
in the case of a separated card, the fact of the separa- 
tion is required to be proved, and can be proved, by 
the naming of the card separated. In the case of a 
lowered hand, the question of degree is introduced, 
that is to say, how much or how little the hand has 
been lowered, and it is a question which it may be 
often very difficult to settle. Thus, a player may say 
to his opponent, ' I shall call your cards, for every one 
can see your hand.' To which the reply may be, 
' My partner cannot. Why do you look over my 
hand?' Indeed, in the old days of duelling, I 
recollect a serious quarrel resulting from the above 
occurrence. 

" I may be told then that, whenever it is of great 
importance to a player that his partner should know 
his cards, and of no great consequence that they 
should be seen by his adversaries, he may, by lower- 
ing his cards, give this information, and be subject to 
no penalty.. But this is not so. There are many 
offences at cards, and those the most serious, against 
which no laws can be framed, because the offence is 



138 CARD ESSAYS. 



very difficult of proof, and because, if proved, the 
only proper punishment would be expulsion from 
the society in which it was committed. 

" A good instance of this class of offence is the case 
of a player who looks over his neighbor's hand. 
What offence can be graver ? Yet no penalty can be 
attached to it. By inadvertence, any man may, once 
in a way, direct his eyes to an opponent's hand ; but, 
if he does it frequently, you cease to play with him. 

"To this class of offences, in so far as regards the 
imposition of a penalty, I consider the lowering of 
cards to belong. 

"James Clay." 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 139 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



M I knew one was wont to say in scorn, ■ He must needs be a wise 
man, he speaks so much of himself .'"— Essays, Of Discourse, by Fjran- 
cis Bacon. 



Nothing can be more opposed to fact than the 
popular idea that men who indulge in "Play " are a 
set of selfish brutes, constantly trying to get the best 
of each other. This may be true of low sharpers ; 
but is not even faintly applicable to members of re- 
spectable play-clubs. 

Thackeray is probably responsible for the false no- 
tions entertained by some respecting club card-rooms. 
In my humble opinion he took far too cynical a view 
of human nature. He could see the bad side but 
not the good. As regards card-players he is prepos- 
terously in the wrong. Of course, where several 
hundred men are banded together, it will necessarily 
happen that all are not of equal moral worth. But 
the black sheep are as well known in clubs, as objec- 
tionable people are in general society. And, since 
they cannot be removed from the club, unless they 
do something very flagrant, they are tolerated and 
disliked. 

The vast majority of "play" men, exhibit, as a 
rule, many admirable qualities. The nicest sense of 



140 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

honor, the most elegant courtesies of civilized life, 
good fellowship, self-control under trying circum- 
stances, these and many other virtues are as common 
in the card-room as gooseberries on a bush. 
. The green cloth lays bare a man's true character 
very readily. I am happy to think that I have 
formed many most sincere and lasting friendships 
at the card-table. And, it has been my privilege to 
know the fine feelings, and the sterling good qualities 
of my play friends, to a degree which would have 
been seldom possible in the case of others ; for they 
were revealed to me in the card-room, which is a very 
Castle of Truth for those who choose to frequent it, 
with their eyes and ears open. 

One of these friends was — James Clay. He was an 
old associate of my father's, and consequently I knew 
him before having the privilege of being admitted a 
member of the Portland Club. 

Till then he had inspired me with a feeling of 
boyish awe, as being the greatest of living Whist- 
players; and, when I first played with him, must 
admit I was half afraid of him. But he soon put me 
at my ease. 

It was not long before he found out that I had 
made a study of the laws of games. I need hardly 
add that we discussed Whist and its laws frequently 
and freely. 

The next step was that he, my senior, and the 
undisputed Chancellor of the Whist-Table, paid me 
the high compliment of consulting me in difficult cases 
that were submitted to him for decision. As Jeames 
says in his H Diary," " Phansy my phelinx ! " 

When "The Laws of Short Whist," edited by 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 141 

Mr. Baldwin, were under consideration, Clay, whc 
was Chairman of the Committee that framed the 
Code, several times did me the honor of asking my 
opinion, although I was not a member of the Com- 
mittee. I may, without egotism, assume that Clay 
thought my judgment worth something, or he would 
not have troubled to write to me as follows : — 

" Brighton and Sussex Club, 
"Aug. 12, 1863. 

" My dear Jones, — I am begining to waver in my 
opinion as to the substitution of * touched ' for ' taken 
up and looked at' [in the laws relating to dealing] . 
There is much to be said for the change. Many per- 
sons think that the law is so at present. It would be 
a great gain to keep every one's hands off the table. 
Nothing is easier than to leave a thing alone. It 
would prevent interruptions to the dealer and unfair 
tricks with the cards. Look at this case. I have seen 
it more than once. The dealer is dealing your hand 
and mine pretty close together. He has dealt one of 
my cards in an uncertain position — equi-distant from 
either hand. I immediately draw my cards towards 
me. The position of the card is no longer uncertain. 
It is close to your cards and distant from mine. Long 
odds you take it up, and your partner has lost his 
deal. I am disposed to be severe on ' traps ' which 
there is no penalty for setting, and to avoid falling 
into which more than ordinary care is required. A 
game is not tolerable if more than reasonable care is 
required. Why ! I can't look round to bet, or take 
5 to 2 from a bystander, or make civil answer to a 
question, if my eyes, even during the deal, are to be 



142 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

always on the watch. The point is not yet finally 
decided, though the majority is for the change. 
What say you to the foregoing arguments in its 
f«av©r ? 

" Yours very truly, 

"James Clay." 

I have several similar letters, e.g. : — 

" Feby. 20, 1867. 
" My dear Jones, — The decision is improved by 
beginning as you propose. ' It is a question of fact.' 
It is no part of your duty to say how that fact is to 
be ascertained. Leave out by all means * the con- 
science of the player,' for fear of accidents. 
" Yours very truly, 

" James Clay." 

Of course we became very intimate, and my attach- 
ment for Clay was constantly augmented by kind- 
nesses I shall never forget. I will mention some 
instances : — 

When I was a mere boy Clay thought proper to 
caution me against plunging. May be I had been 
betting ; I do not remember. But I do recollect say- 
ing I never backed myself for any sum worth men- 
tioning unless I had been winning, and the looser 
invited me to give him a chance of getting it back. 
Clay concluded the conversation by saying, "Never 
win too much of a man at one sitting." 

Again : — An Elderly Gentleman, my adversary, 
opened a hand at Whist by leading queen, holding 
only queen and one small one. He lost the odd trick 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 143 

owing to the original lead being from a weak suit, 
when I said to my partner, " That was a very good 
example of the disadvantage of opening a weak suit. 

Had Mr. [the E. Gf.] led his strong suit originally, 

we must have lost the trick." On which the follow- 
ing conversation ensued : — 

The E. G.—" What did you say . That I lost the 
odd trick by my bad play ? " 

Ego. — " I wasn't speaking to you.'" 

The E. Gr. (indignantly). — "You were speaking at 
me, and you said I lost the odd trick by leading 
queen of diamonds. I had so and so " — (here he 
detailed his hand) — "and with such cards 1 lead a 
strengthening card. What do you say to that ?" 

Ego (sarcastically). — " Oh yes ! I know ! Queen and 
another is a favorite Portland lead." 

This was a severe thrust at the E. Gr., who was a 
great man at the Portland. Abuse his dear Portland 
Club, the Temple of Whist, and to think that I, a 
mere boy, could know as well as an experienced 
Portlander ! Absurd ! Impertinent ! This was, no 
doubt, what the E. Gr. thought, not what he said. 
What he did was, as soon as he could, to retire in a 
dignified manner from the table. 

Now there is nothing seriously offensive in my ob- 
servation, The most that can be said is, I was not 
sufficiently respectful, considering the difference in 
our ages, and possibly my tone and manner might 
have contributed to irritate the E. Gr. At all events 
he would not speak to me afterwards, and would not 
cut in with me. * 

The dissension came to Clay's ears, and he, at once, 
of his own motion set to work to put matters straight* 



144 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

After privately hearing the E, Gk's story from him, 
and my version from me, Clay told me I ought to eat 
humble pie. This I at first declined to do, urging 
that I had been guilty of no offence. Clay, however, 
insisted that, being the junior, I ought to give way, 
and added, apropos of the humble pie, " I will cut 
the slice so thin for you that you will hardly be able 
to taste it." I then allowed Clay to dictate a concil- 
iatory letter. A day or two afterwards I received the 
following from him : — 

"My dear Jones, — I have sent your letter to 
, and with it the best letter I could think of 



from myself. He is considering the matter, — which 
to my mind requires no consideration, — and if he 
does not answer you cordially, I shall think him very 
wrong. But we must remember that he is as obsti- 
nate as you are. I daresay you both call it " firm- 
ness.' " Yours very truly, 

James Clay. ' 

The result was eminently satisfactory to all parties, 
One more reminiscence of Clay's kindness. He spent 
hours and hours with me, when he could ill afford it 
(his time being fully occupied with parliamentary 
duties), in assisting me with various books. My 
Ecarte and especially Piquet are much indebted to 
him. It was mainly through his support that my 
Laws of Piquet, or rather his and mine, were adopted 
by the Portland Club. 

A committee was formed finally to revise the 
Piquet Laws. I pressed him to allow his name to be 
put on the Committee. For some days he refused on 
the ground of want of time. But I eventually per- 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 145 

•suaded him to act, by pointing out the great value 
that would accrue to the laws if his name were ap- 
pended to them. 

It was, of course, important to get the sanction of 
the Turf Club to the Piquet Laws. And here, Clay's 
name was all powerful. Their adoption was proposed 
at a General Meeting of the Turf Club. This was 
carried, and the laws were agreed to en bloc, chiefly, 
as I was afterwards informed by Mr. Baldwin, be- 
cause they were approved by Clay. 

Our friendship continued uninterruptedly until at 
last, poor dear Clay was stricken with paralysis. 
Even then he did not lose his cheerfulness, and his 
head remained clear throughout. I saw him for the 
last time about a week before his death. We talked 
Whist, and he gave me his opinion on some point of 
play, and added that, if he could only get on his legs 
again, he would be able to play Whist as well as 
ever. 

When the end came the world lost a Whist genius, 
and I lost what can never be replaced — a true friend. 



I am often asked my opinion of Clay's play. 

In the first place, what particularly struck me was 
the extreme brilliancy of his game. Of this, the fol- 
lowing coup played by him, is, to my thinking, a 
beautiful illustration. 

The cards lie thus : — Clay has knave, eight, four of 
clubs (trumps); and ace, king, and two small dia- 
monds. Diamonds have never been led. There are 
three other trumps in, viz : nine, six, and three, and 
they are all in the hand to Clay's right. This is cer- 
10 



146 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

Cain, as the other players have not followed suit in 
trumps. 

Clay has the lead, and requires every trick to save 
the game. 

It is clear that, if his right hand adversary plays 
properly, that player must eventually make a 
trick in trumps. It is also demonstrable that if Clay 
makes the usual lead of king and ace of diamonds, 
the right-hand adversary must make a trick. 

In this position I venture to say that ninety-nine 
players,— and good players, — out of a hundred would 
lead king of diamonds, which is the book play. Not 
so Clay. He observes that his only chance is to de- 
part from rule. He must put the lead into his part- 
ner's hand, find him with a forcing card, and the 
right-hand adversary must make the mistake of 
trumping it. Clay, therefore, throws rule altogether 
aside, and leads a small diamond, as though he were 
playing dummy, and saw the cards in his partner's 
hand. 

Clay's partner wins with knave, and leads the best 
spade, which is trumped. Clay overtrumps, and then 
leads another small diamond, to endeavor to put the 
lead again into his partner's hand. His partner wins 
this trick also, and leads a winning card, which the 
adversary again trumps, is overtrumped, has his last 
trump drawn, and the ace and king of diamonds 
make. 

The hands are subjoined, as it is not easy to appre- 
ciate the coup from mere description : — 





A.-— Clay. 


Y. 




B. 


Z. 


Knv. 8, 4 . •!• 


5,4 • • 


* 


io, 9, 6 . . 4 


9,6,3 


Ace, Kg, 5, 2 


6,5. . 


V 


Qn, Knv, 6, 3 . ^ 


Q*3 




8,7,4- 





10. 9 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 147 

Take another example. When a youngster I was 
looking over Clay, and late in the hand he led queen 
from queen, knave, nine, and a small card- This 
was the old-fashioned lead ; but a small card is now 
led from queen, knave, nine, &c. I afterwards asked 
Clay whether he considered the old lead, as given by 
Hoyle, preferable to the modern one. He said, " No ; 
I generally lead the small one ; but when I had the 
lead, the cards must lie lucky for us or we lose the 
odd trick." By this he meant that, unless the king 
lay to his left or the ten to his right, and one of the 
finesses succeeded, the odd trick could not be won. 

I have won many an odd trick since by acting on 
a similar principle, and always think of Clay when 
it comes off. 



In the second place, though no one knew better 
than Clay when to depart from rule, no one was more 
regular in his observance of rule. He combined the 
carefulness of the old school with the dash and bril- 
liancy of the new. 

Whist-players owe more to Clay than to any other 
man, in consequence of his educating his generation 
to adhere to rule. He taught his contemporaries the 
advantage of playing on system. The game has de- 
veloped since his day, and I am bold enough to hold 
the opinion that there are now living better players 
than he ever was. But he, by his example, showed 
them how to become better players. There are many 
men, at the present day, who know more mathematics 
than Newton ever did ; but Newton showed them 
the way. Or, magna componere parvis, there are 



148 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

now finer billiard-players than old John Roberts 
ever was, but he was the billiard genius whom they 
have all copied, and from whom they drew their 
inspiration. Cook would never have made a break 
of 936, had not Roberts, by his teaching, paved the 
way for him. 



As to Clay's manner of playing. I have heard him 
called a slow player. That, however, is hardly cor- 
rect. He should rather have been called a deliberate 
player. His system was to play every card at the 
same pace. Hesitation is often to the player's disad- 
vantage ; and Clay's object, in playing deliberately, 
was that his pause, when doubtful as to the correct 
play, should not be taken for hesitation, but should 
be attributed to his natural habit of machine- like 
play. 



There was one exception to this habit of playing 
deliberately. Clay seldom played a card contrary to 
rule in order to take in the adversary, or, as it is 
technically called, a false card. To quote his own 
words : — 

" I hold in abhorrence the playing false cards. I 
freely admit that to this practice there is great and 
frequent temptation ; * * * for there is great en- 
joyment, when your trick succeeds, in having taken 
in your adversary, and having won the applause of 
an ignorant gallery, while, if you have played in the 
common-place way, even your partner scarcely 
thanks you. You have done your duty, nothing more 



CARD-TABEE TALK. 149 

— and he had a right to expect it of yon. * * * I 
do not, however, go the length of saying that false 
cards should never be played, but I prescribe to my- 
self, and advise to you, the following limits to the 
practice." 

The limits laid down by Clay were as follows : — 
You are justified in playing false, with a partner so 
bad that regularity in your play affords him no in- 
formation ; or, when your partner is so weak all 
round that you can do harm by deceiving him ; or, 
in the last three or four tricks of the hand, when if 
your partner holds a particular card you attain the 
result you desire, and, if not, your deceiving him is 
of no consequence ; or, when the so-called false card 
is false as against the adversary but not as against 
the partner. 

I have been tempted to make this digression re- 
specting false cards, because the case, as put by Clay, 
is so well worth studying. 

To return : — Clay played, as a rule, deliberately. 
But, when he played a false card, he got his card 
ready before it was his turn to play. 

No doubt he thought that if he appeared to hesi- 
tate, he might be suspected of a false card, and there- 
fore prepared to play rather more quickly than was 
his wont. 



Clay was fond of shuffling the cards very thoroughly 
after every deal. Having suggested to him that so 
much shuffling was likely to produce wild hands, 
which are disadvantageous to good players, he said, 
" I do not agree with you at all. I should like to 



150 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

have the cards thrown out of a volcano after every 
deal." 



Clay, though as a rule agreeable at the table, could 
say a severe thing when addressed by men he dis- 
liked. Some of his mots on these occasions are well 
worth recording. 

Under the name of " Castleniaine," Clay is de- 
scribed in Bans Merely as also his manner to "men 
whom he favored not." The incident alluded to is, 
of course, that of his playing Whist with Vincent 
Flemyng, when the latter, having backed himself 
heavily, because he had a " tower of strength " for a 
partner, lost the rubber by not leading trumps from 
five trumps to an honor. 

Flemyn's query to Clay, and Clay's reply about 
the eleven thousand young Englishmen who would 
not lead trumps from five, and their consequent con- 
dition of peripatetic impecuniosity, are well known, 
but the passage will nevertheless bear quotation. 

" Vincent held the knave and four more trumps. 
If he had only gone off with that suit the game was 
over. * * * True he had not a very powerful 
hand * * * so he led off with his own strongest 
suit, which was trumped by Hardress the second 
round * * * and the critical fifth trick was just 
barely saved. * * * Flemyng said, ' I ought to 
have led trumps ; there's no doubt of it.' He looked 
at his partner [Castltmiaine] as he spoke, but the 
latter answered never a word till Vincent repeated 
the question pointedly. It has been before stated, 
that Castlemaine's manner to men whom he favored 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 151 

» 1 ■ 1 . — . 

not, was somewhat solemn and formal. ■ It has 
been computed,' he said, very slowly, * that eleven 
thousand young Englishmen, once heirs to fair for- 
tunes, are wandering about the Continent in a state 
of utter destitution, because they would not lead 
trumps with five an honor in their hands.' The 
ultra- judicial tone of the reply would have been 
irresistibly comic at any other time." 



The following is a parallel to that story. 

The great authority was looking on at Whist when 
the second player, whom he favored not, holding ace, 
king, knave, instead of playing king, as he should 
have done, finessed the knave. 

The queen made, third hand ; ace and king were 
afterwards trumped. ^ 

The player then turned to Clay and asked whether 
the finesse of the knave was justifiable. 

To him, the following crushing rejoinder, spoken 
very deliberately at the wall opposite, instead of to 
the querist : — 

" At the game of Whist, as played in England 
(pause), you are not called upon to win a trick (an- 
other pause), unless you please." 



A similar anecdote of Clay got into the papers some 
years ago, but was incorrectly told, and was spoilt in 
the telling. The correct version is as under : — 

A player having asked for trumps, though he did 



152 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

not hold a trump (a most outrageous Whist atrocity), 
his partner said, after the hand, — 

" I presume you did not intend to ask, but pulled 
out a wrong card." 

"No," was the reply, "I had a very good hand, 
and wanted trumps out." 

Then, turning to Clay, he inquired if, with a ver} 
good hand, his play was defensible. 

Clay threw himself back in his chair and stared at 
the cornice in the next room. He had a long cigai 
cocked out of one corner of his mouth, and as he 
spoke, in his " ultra- judicial tone," his voice seemed 
to proceed, in a most comical and indescribable man- 
ner, from behind the cigar. He said : — 

" I have heard of its being done once before (pause) 
by a dear old friend of mine (pause)." 

" And," innocently pursued the victim, "was your 
friend a good judge of Whist? " 

" I am hound to add," resumed Clay, as though he 
had wished to conceal the fact, but that the recital of 
it was wrung from him by this question, " I am 
bound to add, that he died shortly afterwards (pause, 
then very distinctly (in — a — lunatic-asylum !" 



Clay was once lamenting to me the number of 
erroneous decisions he had known to be given with 
regard to the Laws of Whist. I said, — 

" I don't see what you can do further than refer 
the case to the best judge in the room, and go by his 
decision, right or wrong." 

" I think abetter plan would be," replied Clay, 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 153 

" to ask the best judge in the room what ought to 
be done, and then t© do just the contrary. You will 
generally be right.' ■ 



Lord Henry Bentinck was another player, of the 
past generation, of high repute. 

At the time referred to many of the best players of 
the day belonged to the Portland Club, where Lord 
Henry usually played. He, with perhaps a pardon- 
able feeling of superiority that excellence gives, was 
not very willing to admit fine play on the part of his 
confreres, and especially on the part of Clay. 

He was no doubt a fine player, but tenax propositi 
to a degree that militated against very perfect Whist. 
For instance, when he had made up his mind not to 
be forced in trumps, I have seen him allow a whole 
suit to be brought in against him, rather than take 
the force. 

Again, he made no distinction between partners, 
playing the same game with a good as with a bad 
one, whereas, players of the highest class vary their 
game to suit their partners. 

His strong point was his accurate observance of the 
fall of the cards. He was very particular about the 
play of the small cards, and this, no doubt, led him 
to conceive the idea of the call for trumps, which was 
his invention (see Clay's "Short Whist," pp. 100, 
101). 

The following is an instance of his regard for small 
cards. A newly-elected member of a Whist club, 
whose reputation as a player had preceded him. 



154 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

on sitting down to a rubber there for the first time, 
was looked over by Lord Henry afid another member, 

Col. F . After a hand or two, the new comer 

having queen, nine, eight, six of one suit, and queen, 
nine, eight, three of another, led originally from the 
latter. The rule being to lead the strongest suit, and 
the six being a higher card than the three, in strict- 
ness the former suit should be opened, though in 
actual play it is all but immaterial which suit is 
chosen. 

Immediately after this, Lord Henry walked away 
from the table, with an air that betokened he had 

seen enough. He was followed by Col. F , who 

asked him what he thought of Mr. N 's play. 

" They told me he could play Whist," softly replied 
that sarcastic nobleman. 



When his partner, I took care he should have all 
the information about small cards that could be 
given, as witness this hand, which we played to- 
gether : — 

He leads a trump. The second hand plays the six. 
I hold the five, the four, and the three. To the first 
round I play the five ; to the second, the three, thus 
showing that I hold the four, as no Whist-player plays 
a high card when a lower will do as well. This was 
before the echo of the call had been invented. The 
hand continued, and it soon transpired that there 
were four honors against us. My partner having the 
lead, and knowing me still to hold a small trump, 
and that 1 was able to ruff a suit, forced me, instead 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 155 

of leading a third round of trumps, as he would other- 
wise have done. The trick made by the force event- 
ually enabled us to save the game. 

It was this kind of attention to details that pleased 
Lord Henry, and, unless such minutiae were kept in 
view, he would not concede any merit to his partner's 
play. 

In consequence, I believe, of this coup, — if coup it 
can be called, — Lord Henry paid me what he evidently 
meant for a compliment. Bushe, better known as 
Johnny Bushe, a fine player, and one of the most 
charming men that ever entered a card-room, told 
me he asked Lord Henry, whom he considered the 
best Whist- player in the Portland Club. ' ' They none 
of them know anything about it," replied he, in his 
peculiarly gentle and biting manner, "but I fancy 
young Jones is less ignorant of the game than most 
of the members." 

Considering that at the time Clay, Col. Pipon, 
Petrie, Major Adams, Hermann, Storey, and a dozen 
others almost as good, whose names do not at the 
present moment occur to me, were then habitual 
players at the Portland, this criticism amused Bushe 
immensely, as was evident from the gusto with which 
he used to relate the story. 



In addition to his accurate observation of the fall 
of the cards, Lord Henry had one great virtue as a 
Whist-player, — a virtue that might, with advantage, 
be cultivated more than it is, — he never lectured his 
partner. If you did not discuss the game with him, 



156 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

he did not discuss it with you. If you asked him a 
question you got an answer, generally a cynical one. 
It was your own fault ; you brought it upon your- 
self. 

Acting on this experience, I generally played a 
silent rubber with him, except to inquire whether he 
had a card of the suit led when he renounced. On 
one occasion, however, I departed from this rule. 

My hand was ace and a small spade ; king, ten, 
and two small hearts (trumps) ; queen, and two 
small clubs ; and knave, ten, nine, and a small 
diamond. 

I led knave of iamonds. Queen was put on 
second hand ; king, third hand ; ace, fourth hand. 

The club was then led through me. I called for 
trumps. The second round of clubs my partner won 
with king ; I completed the call. 

Lord Henry did not lead a trump, but returned the 
diamond suit. I, thinking he had no trump, played 
a very cautious game, and lost the odd trick. Had 
my partner led a trump, we should have won two or 
three by cards. After the hand : — 

Ego. — 1 called for trumps, Lord Henry. 

Lord H. — You can't call for trumps after you have 
had the lead and not led a trump. 

Now, of course, it was no use arguing ; so I let the 
matter drop. The proposition, however, is a mon- 
strous one from a Whist point of view. I am not 
strong enough to start with a trump ; but my suit 
being established the first round, and being protected 
everywhere, a trump is obviously the lead for us. 

The hand is also a good illustration of Lord Henry's 
style of play. It is a certainty that he saw the call. 



CARD-TABLE TAIiK. 151 

and knew that my suit was established ; but because 
he had a crotchet that you can't call for trunips after 
you have had the lead and have not led a trump, he 
ignored the call and chose to play what he considered 
the game. 



Those who are not Whist-players may require to 
be informed that calling for trumps, — the strongest 
intimation a player can give his partner that he 
wants a trump led,— -is accomplished by playing an 
unnecessarily high card before a low one. It indi- 
cates very great strength in trumps, a minimum of 
live trumps with one honor, or of four trumps with 
two honors. It is often called an invitation to lead 
tramps ; but it is more than this — it is a royal invita- 
tion — a command. 

Students of Clay will observe that I called for 
trumps with less than the recognized minimum of 
four trumps two honors. But it must be borne in 
mind that general rules only apply to an original 
call, not necessarily to a call late in a hand. An 
original call means four trumps two honors, or five 
trumps one honor as a minimum, with other good 
cards in hand. But the opportunity of leading- 
trumps, or of calling for them once passed, and then 
a call being made, means, the fall of the cards ha^ 
shown that a trump lead would be very advanta- 
geous. The caller has a very good hand, and such 
strength in trumps that, considering what cards are 
out, partner's strengthening card from three tramps, 
or a small one from four, will probably land him in a 
great score. 



158 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

It may be interesting to record Lord Henry's opin- 
ion of the comparative values of the scores of three 
and four at Short Whist. 

To non-players it may be premised that there are 
many who prefer the score of three to that of four, 
because at three honors can be counted, but at four 
they cannot. On the question being discussed before 
Lord Henry, he epigrammatically observed, ' * I have 
yet to learn that holding three honors is any bar to 
winning the odd trick." 

This puts the whole case in a nutshell. 



The players of the old school, who learnt their 
Whist at Graham's, held book- whist in great con- 
tempt, and had a way of saying, '* Whist cannot be 
learnt from books." 

It is true that to become thoroughly conversant 
with the refinements of Whist, frequent practice with 
good players is essential. But a would-be player who 
begins practising with a theoretical knowledge of the 
game, must, one would fancy, have an advantage 
over another, of similar capacity, who allows himself 
to be guided by the light of nature alone. I presume 
no one will contend that a sound precept, orally con- 
veyed, is less sound when printed in a book. 



There are two books on Whist which all who wish 
to learn the game ought to study. I refer, of course, 
to " Short Whist," by James Clay, and " The Theory 
of Whist," by William Pole. 

Clay's book is charmingly written, and may be 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



called the most suggestive work on the subject. It 
is eminently graceful and readable, and calculated to 
make people think about Whist, if they choose to 
read between the lines. 

The chapter, however, on intermediate sequences 
ought to be expunged, as it perpetuates a view which 
Clay afterwards relinquished. 

I argued the point there discussed, with Clay, some 
time after the appearance of his book, and he was 
generous enough to admit that the penultimate lead 
from five-card suits (which he opposes in the chapter 
referred to) is right. He wound up by saying, " You 
have convinced me. When I play with you at the 
Portland I shall adopt your system." 

Had Clay lived to re-edit his " Short Whist," he 
would certainly have advocated the penultimate lead, 
especially as the advantages of it were soon recog- 
nized by many players, and it is now (1879) generally 
adopted by club players. 

Dr. Pole's " Theory of Whist " is an admirable 
book for beginners. It contains, particularly, the 
best essay extant on the reasons for leading originally 
from the long suit. 



Clay says " Talking over the hand after it has been 
played is not uncommonly called a bad habit, and 
an annoyance. I am firmly persuaded that it is 
among the readiest ways of learning Whist, and I 
advise beginners, when they have not understood 
their partner's play, or when they think that the 
hand might have been differently played with a 



160 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

better result, to ask for information and invite dis- 
cussion." 

At the same time it must be admitted that many 
players consider it an affront to talk over a hand, 
especially the Nestors of the card-table, who seem to 
regard any inquiry, — except as to whether they hold 
a card of the suit led when they renounce — as an im- 
putation on their skill. 

When trying to learn Whist, I once asked an old 
gentleman, one of the soundest players of his time, 
if he would explain his object in leading a certain 
card. I asked in a deferential manner, desiring to 
obtain information. 

The old gentleman looked fiercely at me over 
his spectacles for a few moments, and then said, in an 
angry tone, as though I had grossly insulted him, 

" Why, Sir, because nobody but a born fool would 
have played anything else ! " 

No doubt some men do bore one very much by the 
way they criticise without rhyme or reason at the 
end of every hand. 

One of these bores is the " if you had " partner, who 
constantly greets you with " if you had only done so- 
and-so we should have made so-and-so.'' 

My favorite retort to the u if you had " partner is 
to ask if he has ever heard the story of " your uncle 
and your aunt." 

If he has, he does not want to hear it again, and 
is silent. If he has not, and innocently falls into the 
trap by expressing a desire to hear it, I say, in a 
solemn voice, — 

" If your aunt had been a man, she would kave 
been your uncle ! " 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 161 

On one occasion I set down an "if you had" 
partner thus : — I led a small heart from ace, ten and 
two small ones. Queen was put on, second hand ; 
my partner won with king and led trumps. All the 
trumps being out, my partner returned the nine of 
hearts, which I finessed. The nine won the trick, 
and it was now evident that I had the tenace, in two 
senses, over the knave guarded, to my right hand. 

My partner had no more hearts, and so could not 
continue the suit. He, therefore, opened his own 
strong suit. 

I won the first trick in it, and was then in doubt 
whether to return his suit or to lead the ace of hearts, 
making a certain trick, but parting with the tenace. 
It was a question of judgment, depending on the 
score and on the exact values of the cards already 
played in other suits. At all events, after considera- 
tion, I deemed it better, in this particular hand, to 
return my partner's suit. It turned out unluckily, 
and at the end of the hand I was saluted with the 
usual "Oh! Partner! if you had only led out your 
ace of hearts. Why didn't you ? " &c, &c. I replied 
somewhat curtly, " I didn't know it was the best I " 
This answer so turned the tables on my partner that 
he did not " if you had " me again for some time. 



A companion to the "if you had" player is the 
" it didn't matter" player, 

My partner trumps my best card, or does not 
trump a doubtful card after I have called for trumps, 
or commits some other whist -enormity. We win the 



162 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

game notwithstanding, for we have prodigious cards. 
If I suggest that there was no occasion to perpetrate 
the enormity in question, my partner triumphantly 
informs me u It didn't matter." 

This view is altogether fallacious. It did not 
happen to matter in that particular hand ; but my 
confidence is impaired and it will matter in every 
hand I play with that partner for a long time to 
come. 

Again : A point arises whereon my partner does 
not give me information by his play, as to the cards 
he holds, when he might have done so. He then 
tells me he knew we had the game, so "it didn't 
matter." 

But presently, a similar point presents itself, only 
I cannot be sure whether my partner knows we have 
the game or not. I am in the dark. My partner's 
carelessness in the former instance, prevents my 
drawing the inference that he cannot hold such and 
such cards, otherwise he would have informed me. 
He still continues to think his previous play "didn't 
matter." I know it does matter. 



The "it didn't matter " players would do well to 
bear in mind a remark of Clay's to a good player who 
was playing his cards anyhow, because he had game 
in his hand and " it didn't matter." 

" You might as well," said the great Whist Master, 
"have played in the ordinary way. "for the sake of 
uniformity:' 

! There is more Whist-wisdom in that observation 
than many people would suspect. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 163 



To enumerate all the Whist-nuisances one meets 
in the course of a long experience, would require a 
volume. The " if you had " player and the ' ' it didn't 
matter" player are bad enough, but there are many 
much worse. 

There is the gentleman (?) who whenever his 
partner leads a king, pulls out a card, and before 
playing it, says, " Your king, partner?" Of course 
this means, " My dear sir, I have the ace." 

Granting that the player in question has no sinister 
motive, and that he does not intentionally desire to 
draw his partner's attention to the fact that he can 
win the trick, he is a nuisance nevertheless. 



Everyone has met the player who, whenever he 
was about to lead trumps, draws his card and holds 
it by the corner face-downwards on the table. He 
then looks his partner full in the face, and says, 
"What's trumps, partner?" And being replied to, 
he plays his card with a bang. 

This being interpreted of course means ■ * Partner ! 
I have led a trump ; return it on the first opportu- 
nity." 



Again, there is the noisy blustering fellow who 
leads with a bang a king, not trumps, and before it 
is played to draws another card, and plays again 
with violence, almost before the first trick (his of 
course) is completed. 

Translated into plain English this means ' ' Atten- 



164 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

tion I Here's a king, which nobody can beat. Atten 
tion ! partner ! Here's a trump ! Get out the trumps, 
and return my suit, of which I hold ace, queen, or ace, 
knave, and two or three others." Unfortunately 
there is no rule by which such an earthquake of a 
man can be prevented from having his way, as, 
though intimations are contrary to etiquette, it is 
extremely difficult — if not impossible — to define what 
an intimation is. 



Then there is the player who pulls out his cards one 
after the other and puts them back again before he 
plays, and the player whose eyes are all round the 
table, who is humorously said to play triple dummy, 
and who makes wonderful and successful finesses. I 
have known two triple dummy players to cut as 
partners against an unsuspecting youth and an " old 
soldier." The triple-dummy partners had had a 
lengthy inspection of the youth's hand, when the old 
soldier rather astonished them by saying, " Partner, 
you had better show me your hand, as both ,the 
adversaries have seen it." 



A triple-dummy player once finessed the five of 
trumps against me, to his partner's original lead, he 
being the third player with five and king, and I being 
fourth player with four and ace. 

On a former occasion this identical player was 
rather roughly handled in consequence of a similar 
performance. He led : nrv partner hesitated and at 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 165 

last played king second hand. The third hand 
played ace and returned the suit, which my partner 
trumped. 

The adversary to my right then said, '•' Really, 

W , it is not proper to hesitate like that when you 

have only one of the suit in your hand." 

" I assure you," my partner replied, "I was not 

hesitating; I was only waiting till had done 

looking at my hand." 

It is a wonder there was not a row, but affected 

to be satisfied with W 's explanation, that he was 

only in fun. 



once did another very clever thing. He 

became a member of a play- club, where there was a 
bye-law that if honors are scored in error, the adver- 
saries may take them down and add them to their 
own score. 

As a new comer he was courteously informed of the 
existence of the bye-law. 

" Excellent rule, indeed," said , " capital rule !" 

and sat down to play, 

After a hand. or two, his score being three to love, 
he lost two by cards, and observed, smiling to his 
partner, " Lucky ! Vie just saved it ! " 

The adversaries, concluding from the remark " just 
saved it " that they were four, marked four, without 
further consideration. But as soon as the score was 

marked, innocent J y inquired. " Were you four 

by cards that time? " " No, two by cards and two 

by honors/' "Honors were divided," said 

blandly, and so they were. "I think you have a 



166 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

very proper rule here, that under these circumstances 
we score two. Partner, mark a double." 



Clay told me that when he first played Whist at a 
London club he was horrified to see an old gentle- 
man deliberately looking over one of his adversaries' 
hands. Mr. Pacey, the player whose hand was over- 
looked, was, as it happened, an old friend of Clay's, 
and, the rubber being over, Clay took an immediate 
opportunity of advising him to hold up his hand 

when playing against P , adding, 

"The last hand he saw every card you held." 
"Oh, no, he didn't! " replied Mr. Pacey, who was 

well aware of P 's peculiarities, "he only saw 

a few I put in the corner to puzzle him ! " 



§cene, a Whist Club. Dramatis Persona*: Col. Gh 
B , Major B . 

A rubber is about to commence, The Colonel cuts 
in, and has the deal against him. The Major does 
not play, but looks on and bets. 

Major. — I back the deal for five. 

Col. — I take it. 

The Colonel wins the first game. The Major, 
pursuing his usual tactics, when the side he backs is 
losing, immediately slopes off to another table. The 
Major's memory about his bets is rather uncertain. 

The Colonel loses the next two games in two hands ; 
the cards being thrown down each hand, it would 



CARD-TABIiB TALK. 167 

seem very unlikely to anyone not looking on that he 
could have lost the rubber so quickly. 

Col. (calling out). — Major, that's a fiver. 

Major (from the other end of the room). — I had no 
bet. 

Col. — Yes, you had ! You bet me a fiver. 

Major. — Oh, no ! I had no bet. 

Col. — But you win a fiver. 

Major (brightening up). — Oh, yes ! I recollect now. 
I backed the deal. 



In most clubs there is a member who, by his 
habitual sadness and way of looking on the dull 
side of everything, earns the sobriquet of "Dismal 
Jemmy." 

In a play-club the Dismal Jemmy constantly takes 
supposed sympathizers by the button-hole, and la- 
ments his unvarying ill-fortune. 

Meeting a Dismal Jemmy in Piccadilly one after- 
noon, as he was emerging from his club, after the 
usual greetings, I said to him, 

"Well! and how have they been treating you 
lately ? " 

Bis. J. (with as near an approach to a smile as he 
ever permitted himself). — I've had the best day to- 
day that I've had for the last three weeks. I have 
only lost half-a-sovereign ! 

Another specimen of the Dismal Jemmy, is the one 
who makes lugubrious efforts at being funny when 
recounting his sad experiences. He will solemnly 
tell you, for example, when he loses a rubber, that 
" the cards with which he can win are not yet manu- 



168 CARD-TA3LE TALK. 

• 

factured;" lie will inform you with doleful glee of 
the precise sum total of the points he has lost during 
the year, as a unique illustration of the aberrations of 
chance ; and he will wind up by remarking that it is 
fortunate he only plays for trifling stakes. 

On inquiring of one of these gentlemen who take 
their pleasure so sadly, how Fortune had been favor- 
ing him lately : he replied, with a grim smile, " Oh ! 
if I only live long enough, and my money holds out, 
perhaps some day my strong suit will be trumps ! " 



It is remarkable that men say the rudest things 
across the card-table, — things they would scarcely 
dare to say elsewhere, — without any Offence being 
taken. 

Sometimes, however, players rush into the oppo- 
site extreme, and take offence too readily, as in the 
following scene : — 

B. — I lead you a trump originally, and you will 
not return it (resignedly) ; of course, we must lose ! 

B. (meekly). — That was my view of the game. 

D. (firingoff what he means for a joke). — I hardly 
think it amounts to a " view." 

D and B were old friends — men between 

whom more license is permissible than between mere 
acquaintances. They and the set they played with 
often chaffed each other good-naturedly. 

But on this particular occasion B , instead of 

joinirig in the laugh, got angry, and was not on 
speaking terms with D for some months. 



The following severe retort was good-humoredly 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 169 



taken ; but, possibly, the retortee did not see to the 
bottom of it. 

S was a very moderate player who " fancied" 

himself. Holding only trumps, he deliberately forced 
his partner, contrary to all sound Whist doctrines. 

The consequence was that S lost the game, which 

he would easily have saved had he not violated a 
simple elementary principle. 

F. (S 's partner, a great player, in a tone of in- 
jured remonstrance). — How could you force me, with 
only two trumps ? 

S defended his play, as well as he could, on the 

ground of the score, and of what he considered to be 
the peculiar nature of his hand. 

F. — Well, I cannot think you were justified. 

Here the matter would have dropped, but S , a 

very impetuous creature, lost his temper. 

JS. (firing up). — I don't agree with you, that's all. 

Now, if F had said, "I don't value your 

opinion," or " don't think it worth having," S 

would have been furious. But F managed to say 

this in another way. 

F. (after a pause, and very slowly, with a philo- 
sophic air). — 1 really don't know whether I should 
prefer to hear you say that you do agree with me, or 
that you do not agree with me. 

This was very neatly put. But it requires some 
looking into to see the sneer of it. It made no more 

impression on the pachydermatous S than, as 

Sydney Smith observed, tickling the dome of St. 
Paul's would make on the Dean and Chapter. 



170 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

The same player (F ) was once being lectured by 

another moderate performer of the S school. 

F listened till his tormentor had finished, and 

then, in a most polite manner, without the least ap- 
pearance of irritation or tone of sarcasm, (which, to 
my mind, made his reply peculiarly incisive), said : — 

" I hear your argument with respect, — but, — with- 
out conviction.' ' 



As a contrast to the above, the following may be 
related. It is one of the most graceful speeches I ever 
heard at the Whist-table. It was made by the first 
Lord Lytton, a man of most polished manners. I 
was playing Whist with him at the Portland, a good 
many years ago, when it was the fashion to wear 
hanging sleeves. During the rubber the king of 
hearts mysteriously disappeared, and after a time it 
dropped on the table, out of Lord Lytton's sleeve. 

He said with a smile, u I am very glad to think 
that I am playing with gentlemen who know me." 



Scene, a Whist Club. — A member who has been 
dining out, " not wisely but too well," cuts in. 

A B (a very good player) leads a heart : 

Diner-out (his partner) has king, knave and another, 
and puts on the knave, king being the usual play. 
It turns out very badly. After the hand, 

Diner-out (to his partner). — Think I was right 
t' fin'sse knave 'v hearts ? 

A. B. (with a good-humored chuckle and a glance 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 171 

round the table). — I generally put on the king before 
dinner ; after dinner I sometimes play the knave ! 



1 ■ It requires a very good player to win his partner's 
trick ; " that is, of course, if he can avoid it. 

I have often been stung into this remark. by the 
eccentricities of my partners. This is the style of 
thing. Ace is led ; I (second hand) play small ; the 
others play small cards. The suit is continued. I 
(second hand) play queen. My partner hesitates, 
looks feebly at the ceiling, like Dickens' waiter, rubs 
his forehead, and asks to look at the last trick. He 
then pulls out one card, puts it back and pulls out 
another. All this time the mountain is in labor ; I 
know from experience the sort of mouse about to be 
brought forth. At last, out comes the king on my 
poor queen, with a triumphant dash, and the knave 
follows, my partner looking wondrous wise, as 
though he would cry " Eureka." 

I have a good hand, only wanting to know my 
partner with the best of the adversary's suit to lead a 
trump, and make a fine score. But my partner by 
taking the lead from me gets his knave trumped by 
his right hand opponent, who leads a suit his partner 
trumps, and so the game is saved. 

Such a partner, oddly enough, never dreams of 
taking the lead if by so doing he can give me the ten- 
ace at the end of a hand. Thus : a small trump is 
led from a suit of four to the queen ; I, second hand, 
play the seven ; the third hand plays king, and 
wins the trick. A small trump is returned ; my 



172 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

partner puis on ten ; the original leader, supposing 
me to hold a tenace or the ace single, plays a small 
card ; I play eight, and remain with ace, nine ; 
queen and a small one being to my right. When 
three cards remain in each hand, I, second player, 
win the trick in a plain suit ; my partner, having 
none of the suit and the knave of trumps, leaves the 
lead with me, though he ought to know from the fall 
of the cards that I remain with two trumps over the 
original leadt,. 
These two cases happened in one rubber. 



It is common enough in domestic circles, when 
people are asked to make up a rubber, to hear them 
decline at first on the plea that they really know 
nothing about the game. After a little pressing, they 
possibly agree to oblige by taking a hand if nobody 
else will, at the same time repeating their protesta- 
tions of inability, and hoping they may not be 
" blown-up." 

One generally does expect even the know-nothings 
to be able to deal and to follow suit, unless they are 
actually coerced into sitting down. 

But I once played Whist at the house of a relative 
of mine with a gentleman who did not possess even 
this elementary knowledge. 

A fourth being very much wanted, Mr. B 

F , after vainly protesting that he " preferred 

looking on," that he " scarcely ever touched a card," 
And so forth, consented to make us up. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 175 

The cards were cut ; he was told it was his deal. 
Taking up the pack, he said to his partner : — 
" Do you deal out all the cards at this game? " 



I have met various partners almost as simple as the 
one who did not know how to deal. 

Being asked by one of these to give him a good 
general rule for Whist, I told him when he had the 
original lead and five trumps, always to lead one ; 
adding that he would be right forty-nine times out of 
fifty, and that experience alone could tell him the ex- 
ceptional cases. 

We cut in. He was my partner. He had the lead, 
six trumps, tierce major, led another suit, and in con- 
sequence we only scored four instead of winning the 
game. 

"If you do not like my rule," I remarked, "of 
leading a trump from five, at least you might pay me 
the compliment of following it when you are my 
partner." 

"You told me," he replied, " to lead trumps from 
five. I had six trumps, not five. How was I to know 
the rule applied to six ? You should have said ' five 
or more I ' " 



It is by no means uncommon at the Whist-table, if 
you have every trick in your hand, and your partner 
is puzzling his brain as to which card he shall play, to 
give him a hint, especially if he is habitually a slow 
player, that it is quite immaterial which card he pulls 
out if he will only go on. 



174 CARD-TABLE TALK. 



This often assumes the form of playful satire ; but, 
in the following instance, it was taken au grand 
strieux. 

My partner was Sir B. P , a benevolent looking 

old gentleman, who, I soon discovered, scarcely knew 
a spade from a diamond. However, we had very 
good cards, and finding myself with game in my 
hand, while my partner was pondering what card to 
play, I remarked, according to the time-honored 
Whist Joe Miller : — 

" Play the one nearest your thumb." 

He looked much surprised, then said quite seri- 
ously :— " Sir, you must not tell me which card I am 
to play!" 



Playing with a stranger at an evening party, I, in 
the middle. of a hand, seeing that the game was gone 
unless my partner held good trumps, led knave of 
trumps from knave and another. Second hand put 
on ace ; my partner played king, I laid down my 
hand, observing, " We cannot save it." My partner 
then put down his cards, amongst which were several 
trumps. "Oh! " I said, "I suppose you pulled out 
the wrong card." "No," replied my partner, " I 
have always been told to play highest third hand." 



Another instance of Whist innocence. 

Some thirty years ago (1850), the call for trumps 
was not so generally practised as it is now. At the 
time I speak of I remember an old club player's sit- 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 175 

ting down to a rubber with a new comer for a part- 
ner. The new comer, a very indifferent performer, 
played his small cards anyhow, and thus uncon- 
sciously called for trumps. He had but a poor hand, 
and when it was over, his partner observed, " I 
hardly think with your hand, that you were justified 
in asking for trumps.' ' 

" I assure you," replied the stranger, " I did not 
ask for a trump. I should consider it very irregular 
to ask for a trump or for any other suit ; but, as a 
matter of fact, I never opened my mouth ! " 



G , who loved to make a litle ruff, always led a 

single card with that object. On one occasion, seeing 
a single card in his hand, he led it as a matter of 
course, without noticing that he had no trump. His 
partner won the trick and returned the suit. At the 
end of the hand his partner quietly remarked : — 

" In future, G , when you lead a singleton, I 

shall understand it means you have no trump." 

G was always very indignant if this coup was 

referred to, and even went so far as to characterize 
it as an invention. But I was present when it oc- 
curred, and G 's partner was my father. 



Some of the Whist Innocents feel very much hurt 
if their knowledge of the game is called in question. 
The following is a case in point : 

Vutim (mildly). — I led a diamond, and you, with 



176 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

ace, queen, third hand, put on the ace. Surely the 
queen is the usual card. 

Innocent.— No doubt; but I won the trick with 
the ace. 

Victim. — If you had finessed the queen, it would 
have won the trick just the same. 

Innocent. — How can I tell where the king is ? 

Victim (sarcastically).— Well, perhaps I may be 
wrong, but with the ace, queen, the third hand gen- 
erally finesses. It is the only chance you have of 
finessing in the suit. 

Innocent (carefully avoiding any reference to the 
word finesse). — I don't deny that, but the ace — 

Victim (interrupting). — Oh! never mind. One 
would think you do not know what finessing means. 

Innocent (waxing indignant). — Not know what 
finessing means ! Of course I do. It's playing a card 
you haven't got I 



The Whist Innocent occasionally gets out of his 
difficulties with a clever repartee, which stifles dis- 
cussion. 

On one occasion the Innocent holding ace, king, 
queen, &c, of clubs, ace, king, &c, of hearts, one 
small spade, and three small trumps, led the king of 
clubs, and then proceeded with the single spade. 

Of that suit his partner had only ace, queen. He 
finessed the queen, which was taken by the king, 
fourth hand. The suit was returned. The Innocent, 
now second player, trumped it, and his partner's ace 
fell to the trump. After the hand there is a conver- 
sation • — 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 177 

Victim (tremulously, but gently). — Partner, why 
not continue with your strong suit, instead of leading 
a singleton. I confess I can't understand your play. 

Innocent (con spirito). — Well, if you can't under- 
stand it, it is of no use my endeavoring to explain it 
to you. 



Clay's remarks on cutting in with those whose play 
is not known to us are excellent, and are applicable 
to the foregoing stories. He says, "If I am thrown 
among players of whom I know nothing, I feel that 
I play to a great disadvantage. I am like a boy on 
the first day of going to a new school, not knowing 
whom to like, whom to trust, and whom to distrust, 
from whom to expect assistance and honest advice, 
or from whom to dread a hoax." 



In contrast to the foregoing, let me give an example 
of how Whist ought to be played. 

I led from five trumps. After two rounds the fall 
of the cards showed that all the remaining trumps 
were with my partner and myself, two in his hand 
and three in mine. One other suit had been played 
and was exhausted from our hands. 

I now had three trumps, including the winning 
trump, and three cards in each of the unplayed suits. 
Not liking to open a suit of three cards, and having 
no indication as to my partner's suit, I led a losing 
trump, that my partner might get the lead and open 
his strong suit. He could have won the trick, but 
played a lower trump. 

12 



173 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

I knew from his not winning the trick that he also 
had three cards in each of the unplayed suits, as he 
would have penetrated my design, and if he had had 
a four-card suit would have won the trick. At the 
end of the hand, I said, " When you did not win my 
third trump, I saw we could do no good, as you must 
hold three cards in each of the unplayed suits." 

" Yes," he replied, "I knew that very well when 
you led a losing trump ; for you must hold three 
cards in each of the other suits." 

Thus we each counted the number of cards the 
other held in two suits, neither of which had been 
played. 

This is Whist. 

My partner was E T F , the finest 

Whist-player I have ever met. 



Matthews, whose Whist was very good, considering 
it was written in the beginning of this century, says : 
" Observe silently and attentively the different sys- 
tems of those with whom you commonly play ; few 
but have their favorite one, the knowledge of which 
will give you a constant advantage." And again : 
" I must also repeat my advice to proficients to vary 
their play according to the set they are engaged with ; 
and recollect, it would be of no advantage to speak 
French like Voltaire, if you lived with people who 
are ignorant of the language." 

" Mogul," again, in The Field (February 23, 1867), 
remarks : " It would be absurd for players to say 
that certain points of play cannot be allowed as right, 
although sound in principle, because partners may 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 179 

mistake their meaning. If their partners are good 
players, they will not make the mistake ; if they are 
doubtful players, then all refined points of play 
should be avoided. For it must be borne in mind 
that, to rightly estimate the strength of your partner's 
and opponents' play, and to play accordingly, is one 
of the highest qualities of a Whist-player." 

Many good players conduct their hands in precisely 
tne same way, irrespective of the class of partner to 
whom they may be sitting opposite. There are but 
few who are very skilful in helping lame dogs over 
stiles. 

E T F is one of these few. He is the 

best player, with a bad partner, that I know. The 

lame dogs say, ' ' I like playing with F because I 

understand his game," the fact being that F is 

the only man in the club who can understand the 
lame dog's game, and can play down to his level 
accordingly. 

Homer sometimes nods ; and it so happens that I 

can give an example where F did not play his 

partner. 

F (leader) has two cards in hand, viz., the last 

trump and a losing club. Clubs have never been 
led. Each of the other players has two clubs. What 
ought F to lead ? 

If the third player is very good, the proper lead is 
the losing card, and especially if the second hand is a 
muff, as the muff will probably not put on ace second 
hand, not having count d the trumps, and the third 
hand may make the king. Also, if the third hand 
has ace, queen, he, being a good player, will not 
finesse. 



180 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

Per contra, if the third hand is a muff, the propei 
lead is the trump. 

F led the, losing club. The third hand was 

a muff, and holding ace, queen, finessed the queen. 
The fourth hand made the king. The third hand 

then got a mild lecture for finessing (for F never 

blows up his partner), or rather for not counting the 

trumps. But, in fact, F should have lectured 

himself, for not playing his man, as I told him after- 
wards privately. 



Another example, and perhaps a better one, occurs 
to me. Three cards remain in each hand. I (leader) 
have king, ten, and a small trump. The other 
players have nothing but trumps, except my partner, 
who has two trumps and a thirteen card. Ace turned 
up to my left. We are three, the adversaries four, 
and each side has five tricks. If my partner has 
queen, knave of trumps, we win the game, whatever 
I play. 

If the ace, queen of trumps, are against us we must 
lose the game whatever I play. 

But if my partner has queen and a small trump 
only, the problem is how to make two of the remain- 
ing three tricks. 

I led the king of trumps. The second hand, with 
ace, knave, and a small one passed it, considering 
the queen must be in my hand. 

I then led the small trump. 

The second hand put on knave, saying, " Now I've 
got you ! " His blank amazement at finding his 
knave taken by my partner's queen, and the game 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 181 

saved, was very comical to behold, and caused a 
shout of laughter, in which, however, my left hand 
adversary did not join. 

I should add that this gentleman was very prone 
to hold up ace, knave, and I felt sure he would do so 
here, if he had the knave. But I think the play 
wrong, as had 1 held king and queen of trumps, at 
this particular point of the game my best lead would 
be queen, and if that was passed, the small one. 



Among the numerous letters I receive about Whist, 
instances of unusual distribution of cards are not in- 
frequent : as, for example, that A dealt himself 
thirteen trumps ; or had three consecutive hands 
without a trump ; or that B and C had all the trumps 
between them. These letters are generally accom- 
panied by a permission to publish the facts (which 
are well authenticated), or by the question whether 
such a case ever happened before, and sometimes by 
a request to calculate the odds against such an oc- 
currence. 

The obvious reply is that one named hand or com- 
bination is no more improbable than another, and 
that curious hands which illustrate no principle of 
play are not worth the trouble of calculating. 

The following singular combination of cards is, 
however, worth recording as it may be' made to point 
a moral. It came under my observation at the Port- 
land, Clay and my father being partners. 

The game was four-all. The dealer turned up a 
small heart. Clay led a diamond. The secondhand 



182 CARD-TAKLE TALK. 

had ace, king, queen, knave, ten, nine, and two of 
trumps. With these cards the problem is how to loso 
the odd trick. 

The second hand contrived it in this way. He had 
no diamond, and trumped the card led with the 
deuce of hearts. 

My father (third hand) also had no diamond, and 
only one trump, the three, with which he over- 
trumped. 

In the end the holder of the sixieme major only 
made his six trumps, his adversaries having six win- 
ning cards in the unplayed suits, which neither of the 
opponents could trump. They therefore lost the odd 
trick and the game. 

Had the second hand (B ) trumped with the 

nine originally, he must have won the game, how- 
ever the cards lay. For, his partner being dealer, 

held the trump card, and consequently B , by 

then leading trumps, must make seven tricks, even 
if all the remaining trumps are in one hand against 
him. 

No doubt B regarded the chance of the third 

hand's having none of the suit in which he himself 
was void as practically nil. Nevertheless, he might 
have made the game absolutely certain. 

The moral is, Never throw a chance away. 



How many hands can be held at Whist ? 

This question is often asked. It is not difficult to 
calculate the answer. Before doing so, however, it 
is necessary to state accurately what is meant by the 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 183 

question. Does it mean (a) how many different 
hands can an individual hold ; or (b) how many 
different hands can the four players hold ; and (c) 
does it count a different hand if the same hands are 
held by the four* players in different orders — e.g., A 
holding B's hand and B holding A's hand, and so on ; 
and (d) does it count a different hand if the same cards 
are held and a different trump card is turned up ? 

The number of different hands that an individual 
can hold is simply the number of ways thirteen things 
can be taken out of fifty- two, without having two 
sets of thirteen alike. The answer to this is 635,013,- 
559,600. 

It is evidently a different Whist-hand if A Y B and 
Z one or all interchange an entire hand. It is also 
to my mind a different Whist-hand if a different 
trump card is turned up. 

If this is admitted, the total possible number of 
Whist-hands that can be held by all the four players 
is 697,381,590,951,354,306,910,086,720,000. 

This result has been multiplied out several times 
by different people and submitted to various tests, 
and it may be relied on as accurate. The process 
of calculation was submitted to the late Mr. Bidder, 
the well-known engineer, whose power over figures 
was of European celebrity, and he agreed that it is 
correct ; only he would not admit that it is a different 
hand if a different card is turned up. Those who 
take this view have only to divide the above number 
by 13, when the result will be the number of possible 
hands if the question d is answered in the negative. 
If the question c is also answered in the negative, it 
will be necessarv further to divide by 24. 



184 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

If anyone- desires to verify the figures given, he 
has only to perform the following little multiplication 
sum: — 

52 . 51 . 50 3.2.1 

-*2 xlS 

(13.12 11 3.2.1)* 



Misprints sometimes read very queerly. In a reply 
of mine to a Loo question, the word 4 Mooed" was 
misprinted " loved" with the following comical 
effect : — 

" If you are loved by Miss it is the same as though 
you were loved by anyone else. It makes no differ- 
ence whether you play an unlimited game or not." 



In criticising my M Historical Notes on Whist," the 
editor of a London paper blamed me for saying 
nothing about Scotch Whist. 

I wrote to him explaining that Scotch-Whist, or 
Catch-the-Ten, was purposely omitted, as it has no 
more resemblance to Whist than the Scotch fiddle 
has to a violin. 

To my surprise and amusement he inserted my 
letter in his next number. 



The same gentleman also found fault with me for 
quoting from " Antony and Cleopatra " a passage 
beginning " My good knave Eros," and saying that 
" knave" was a punning allusion to a knave at 



CARD-TABLE TALK. ' 185 

cards. My critic contended that when ' ' Anthony and 
Cleopatra " was written, knave was not used in this 
sense. 

It so happened that the statement was taken from 
Douce's " Illustrations of Shakespeare,'' and it was, 
therefore, most likely right. But not being a pro- 
found philologist, I was at a loss to prove my case. 

As luck would have it, however, I chanced just 
afterwards to find in Cotgrave's " French and English 
Dictionary," " Valet de Piqve, Knave of Clubs." 

Cotgrave^vas published in 1611. 

M Antony and Cleopatra " was written about 1607. 

So I wrote the editor to the effect that, unless he 
could show the modern signification of the word 
knave to have been acquired between the years 1607 
and 1611, his strictures only exposed his imperfect 
acquaintance with the history of the word. 

He was good enough to insert this also. 



In the advertisement of the " American Hoyle" 
the following occurs : — u It is not a re-hash of 
English Games, but a live American book, expressly 
prepared for American readers." 

Finding the live American book had reached its 
tenth edition in 1877, I ordered a copy, but to my 
surprise was informed that it could not be imported 
in the regular way because some of it was pirated, or 
re-hashed ! 

I was, therefore, obliged to commission a friend to 
smuggle a copy from New York. 

The Whist is a compilation from Pole, Clay, and 
myself. I do not complain of American reprints of 



186 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

my books or articles while there is no International 
Copyright Act. The Americans are within their 
rights in reprinting ; but there is no occasion to add 
gratuitous lies in the advertisements. American 
papers please copy. 

In the present case what is taken from me is very 
little, but it is not acknowledged except in one place, 
where lam playfully called " The writer 'Cavendish' " 
(p. 17). Several of the smaller games are taken from 
Bohn and other English books. An article on 
" Obsolete Card Games " is reprinted front a paper I 
wrote years ago in " Once a Week." My knowledge 
of the subject was then very imperfect, and, of course, 
all my mistakes are copied. 

An article on *' Probabilities at Poker " is acknowl- 
edged as by Dr. Pole and myself. In this article, by 
a slip of the pen, the odds against a straight flush 
with a pack of fifty-two cards, are given as 650,000 to 
1. The real odds are 64,973 to 1. The mistake arose 
thus : Dr. Pole, in order to save the trouble of multi- 
plying out, made use of logarithms, and accidentally 
wrote one place of figures too many. 

I cannot say that the re-hasher of the American 
Hoyle is welcome to my articles, but he is heartily 
welcome to the mistakes. 



Why is Piquet so little played in England ? 

It is generally admitted to be by far the best card 
game for two persons, taking the same position as 
Whist does with regard to four-handed games. 

In France, as everyone knows, Piquet is univer- 
sally played. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 187 

English indifference to the game may perhaps be 
attributed to its complex nature, a difficulty by no 
means insuperable, unless we are willing to concede 
that we are either less intelligent or more lazy than 
our vivacious neighbors. 

That the French should possess, as it were, a 
monopoly of so beautiful a game, is as regrettable to 
me, as it was to Rowland Hill that the Devil should 
have all the best tunes. 



When Bezique first became the rage, about 1868, 
no two sets of rules agreed. The rules * ' lived dis- 
persedly in many lands, and every minstrel sang 
them differently.' ' In my first little book on the 
subject I gave the principal variations. Shortly after 
I was much amused on receiving a letter, from which 
the following is an extract : — 

u I ventured, a few evenings ago, to score aces and 
tens as I won them. My adversary, a lady, * flew 
out ■ at me, saying, ' Why, in that way, you'll get out 
before me, and I have several things to declare ; 
surely declarations ought to take precedence of stupid 
old aces and tens/ 

11 My adversary was so far correct that if I continued 
to mark those ■ stupid old aces and tens ' I should 
probably score 1,000 first, for I was 940, and she was 
quite 200 behind. I calmly referred her to 'Aces 
and Tens,' p. 12, in ■ Cavendish's Pocket Guide to 
Bezique ' ; but she said, ' I never heard of Bezique 
being played in that way,— never.' And then she 
read out the paragraph, p. 10, headed ' Counting Aces 



188 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

and Tens/ and raised Her voice when she came to the 
words, ' This is the usual system,' and then stopped 
suddenly, and put the little book in her pocket. 
' There,' she said, 'do you hear? This is the usual 
system. I should think it was the usual system in- 
deed, and I beg you will follow it.' 

" When we had finished playing, at my earnest 
request the rules were restored to me, and then I per- 
ceived that my fair opponent had omitted to read the 
words that follow ' this is the usual system,' viz., ' but 
for a better one, see p. 13,' which backs up my system. 
My constitution is not robust enough to stand hot 
arguments before retiring to rest, so I let the matter 
drop." 



"The fascinatin but slightly onsartin game" of 
Poker has, within the last few years (1878) become a 
favorite in England. In the United States, whence it 
was imported, it is universally played. 

Poker may be described as Brag without improve- 
ments. The great object of each player is to mystify 
everyone else as to the contents of his hand. A 
good Poker-face, one that will not betray the nature 
of a hand by change of countenance, is a valuable 
possession. Chaffing and talking without regard to 
facts (called Poker-talk), with a view of misleading, 
is permitted, and is considered quite fair. As a round 
game, Poker ranks high ; but it is open to one great 
objection, viz., that the game cannot be played prop- 
erly unless large stakes are engaged. 

An admirable illustration of Poker-talk, lately 
published in an American journal, is worth quot- 
ing:— 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 189 

" Austen attempted to teach Murphy how to play 
Poker. Murphy learnt rapidly, and the stakes, from 
a small beginning of beans, soon developed into bul- 
lion. When the pot had risen to sixteen dollars, 
Murphy got inquisitive. 

" Murphy. — S'posin a man has two kings? 

" Austen. — Not such a bad hand, but two pairs is 
better. 

11 Murphy. — Oh ! Then s'posin a man has two more 
kings, is that double ?" 

[For the information of those who do not play 
Poker, it may be observed that four kings is one of 
the best hands that can be held, but that two pairs is 
only a moderate hand.] 

" Austen. — Thunder I I throw up my hand. You 
are a big fool to have told me. You might have won 
all I have ! 

" Murphy raked in the pot, laid down his hand, 
and started home. 

M Austen packed up the relinquished cards, ran 
them through, and was heard to exclaim, ' Two sixes I 
by all that's blue ! '" 



Of course, it is a standing order at Whist that 
lookers-on should not speak. The Etiquette of Whist, 
says : — 

" Bystanders should make no remark, neither 
should they by word or gesture give any intimation 
of the state of the game." 

And the Club Code says : — 

* ' If a bystander make any remark which calls the 
attention of a player or players to an oversight affect- 



190 CARD-TABLB TALK. 

ing the score, he is liable to be called on, by the 
players only, to pay the stakes, and all bets on that 
game or rubber." 

Before this law was passed there was no penalty 
for drawing attention to oversights in the score ; to 
do so was only an offence against etiquette. 

Clay told me that what he most prided himself on 
in all his card-room experience was his self-control 
under the following circumstances : — 

He laid the long odds. The players he was backing, 
who had won the first game, forgot to mark it. They 
then won the second game, and the rubber, but only 
scored one game, and continued to play. 

The player with whom Clay had previously betted 
then asked him to lay the long odds. 

Clay felt sorely tempted to say, " Why, I've won 
the long odds already." Ninety-nine men out of a 
hundred would undoubtedly have done so ; but Clay 
had presence of mind enough to decline the bet with- 
out further remark. This, it will be remembered, was 
before the law had been passed which imposes a 
penalty on a bystander for drawing attention to an 
oversight in scoring. 

I believe Clay eventually lost the long odds, and 
had to pay them, as bets go with the stakes ; but 
cannot charge my memory positively as to the result 
of the rubber. 



Entering a Club card-room one afternoon I saw a 

card under D 's chair. I said " Oh ! you've — — " 

intended to add " dropped a card," but, remember- 
ing t had no business to speak, stopped myself. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 191 

D. — What were yon going to say ? 

Ego. — Oh, nothing ! I've no right to say any- 
thing. 

D. (rather a nervous old gentleman, plaintively). — 
Oh I do tell me if I've done anything wrong ! I 
wouldn't do any thing wrong for the world ! — (and so 
on for several minutes). At last, 

Ego. — I'll say what I was going to say if the ad- 
versaries will give me permission. 

Adversaries. — Oh 1 Certainly, certainly, we don't 
want to take any advantage of a mistake (&c, &c e ) 

Ego (to D ). — Well, then, you've dropped a 

card. 

D. (looking under his chair, picks up the card and 
puts it in his hand). — Thank you, I'm so much 
obliged to you. 

Game proceeds. 

D. — Well, that's game, four by honors and several 
by cards (throws down his hand). 

Adversary. — Hallo I You've got a card too many. 

(The dropped card, which D had put in his 

hand, was then discovered to belong to the other 
pack). Fresh deal. 

D. — Jones told me it was mine. 

Adversary. — We've nothing to do with what Jones 
told you. You should have counted your cards. 

Z).— Jones ! Look here ! What is the rule ? 

But I had left. Foreseeing what was about to 
happen I had been suddenly seized with a burning 
desire to ascertain whether there was anyone in 
the billiard-room. How it ended I don't know, 
except that a bystander told me afterwards, I was 
well abused all round. 



192 CARJKTABLE. TALK. 

Moral : — Never, as an outsider, make any remark 
on the game, unless appealed to. 



Club Committees occasionally act in a very despotic 
manner , forgetting that they are only appointed to 
manage the affairs of the members. Any serious 
misconduct ought not to be dealt with by a Com- 
mittee but by a special general meeting. 

At a London club, where no game is allowed on 
Sundays, it used to be the practice to play after 
twelve on Saturday night. On one occasion, how- 
ever, the fact that play had continued after twelve on 
Saturday night was brought officially to the notice 
of the Committee (who before that were perfectly 
cognizant of the practice), and the attention of the 
members engaged was called to the rule about 
Sunday play. The Committee wrote " to the 

offenders (?) informing them that under Rule 

a repetition of their crime would entail their sum- 
mary expulsion, 

Certain fines are also exacted for late play, and 
these fines were duly paid, and this fact was within 
the knowledge of the Committee. 

I dont offer any opinion as to whether or not it is 
wicked to finish a rubber of Whist on Saturday night 
if the clock strikes twelve in the middle of it ; but it 
is rather amusing to think that the club in question 
pocketed the fines, thus rendering themselves par- 
takers of the crime, and that at the same time the 
Committee bullied the members who paid the fines. 
This proceeding, to quote Artemus Ward, " betrays 
genius of a lorfty character." 



CARD-TABLE XAiK. 193 

- 

Turning over the leaves of a blotting-book at a 
play-club I came across the following fragment of a 
letter, which I read almost before I was aware of it, 
or, as Mrs. Cluppins might have said, "the words 
forced themselves upon my eye " : — 

" Sir, — When I had the pleasure of meeting you 
yesterday, as you did not refer to the racing and card 
account between us, I fancy it must have slipped your 
memory that you owe me one hundred and eighty- 
seven pounds " 

Here the letter broke off. 

What a precious bad memory that fellow must 
have had ! 



I was once paid ten pounds twice over, owing to 
some mistake in card accounts. On trying to set it 
right the player who had overpaid admitted entire 
forgetfulness of the transaction, but was willing to 
take the ten pounds back if I was sure about it. I 
demurred to this, on the ground that the mistake 
might possibly have been mine, but added that, as I 
did not feel justified in keeping the money, I would 
give it to any charity he liked to name. 

He said he did not care, so I proposed to present 
ten guineas to the Asylum for Idiots. 

My friend was a little nettled at this, though really 
no reflection on his mental powers was intended. 
This channel was merely chosen because I thought 
the asylum a deserving institution. 



C B C , and old friend of mine, a Fellow 

of his college, and also a capital Whist-player, having 

13 



194 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

obtained an appointment, resigned his Fellowship, and 
left Cambridge to fulfil his new duties. 

C 's father, himself a scholar, but not a Uni- 
versity man, had a very easily-to-be-conceived notion 
that the Dons valued scarcely any branch of knowl- 
edge outside mathematics and classics. 

This gentleman happened to visit Cambridge 
shortly after his son's departure, and was entertained 
at the high table. He was naturally delighted at the 
coruplinients that were paid to his son's abilities, and 
at the regrets the Fellows expressed for his loss. 

" Mr. C ," said the Master of the neighboring 

Hall, in a dignified manner, " your son's leaving u3 
is considered quite a loss to the University." 

Mr. C pricked up his ears, expecting another 

tribute to his son's intellectual superiority. 

The Master continued, " The fact is we have not 
had a good rubber since he left ! " 

C B C being a high wrangler, one need 

not sympathize with his father at finding his son had 
not confined his studies solely to the curriculum im- 
posed by Alma Mater. 



The father of another friend of mine, under some- 
what similar circumstances, had more reason to 
grieve. 

Having at his son's request taken him away from 
his profession, and placed him at the University, at 
some effort to himself, trusting to find his reward in 
his son's scholastic success, I was able to congratu- 
late him one day on the voung fellow's having 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 196 



obtained a prize, the information having been im- 
parted to me by the father himself. ; But he roughly 
stopped my complimentary expressions as follows : — 
" Yes he has won a prize ! " Then with a curl of 
the lip and a snort of chagrin, " The Silver Billiard 
Cue." 



The Laws of Whist, though very good in the 
principles on which they are based, are, it must be 
confessed, loosely worded. It is to be hoped that 
some day the drafting may be reconsidered. If this 
were done with the consent of the clubs that have 
adopted the laws (which one would think could be 
readily obtained), a boon would be conferred on 
Whist-players. 

I could give many instances of bad drafting, but, 
as this is not the place for criticism on the Laws of 
Whist, will quote only two forwarded by a humorous 

friend, S P , with the hope that the wording 

of our Whist code might be revised : — 

" I have been considerably irritated of late by a 
Mr. Muff, a practical joker who, if he had only read 
the instructions of * Cavendish ■ as carefully as he 
reads the rules, might some day play one card out of 
three correctly. 

II 'Twas only the other day Mr. Muff was dealing, 
when his partner exclaimed, " You have misdealt ! ' 
He replied, * I am certain I have not,' and proceeded 
deliberately to count the cards remaining in his 
hand. I exclaimed, * Now you have made a misdeal 
of it ! ' ' No I have not,' he replied, l fetch the rules.' 
And sure enough, he, not being under the impression 



196 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

that he had made a mistake (Law 44, par. v.) when 
he counted the cards, I could not claim a misdeal, 
but could only ^ook severe and feel that I had been 
sold. 

" I trusted that the dignified silence with which I 
accepted his reading of the rules would have made 
some impression upon him. Vain hope ! A few days 
afterwards he was again my opponent (the only 
piece of luck I had had that day), when his partner 
called attention to the trick of drawing his card 
towards him before Mr. Muff had played. I required 
the latter to play the highest of the suit. He played 
a small one, and presently one higher. * Well,' said 
I, ' I shall claim a revoke presently, if required.' 
* You may claim as much as you like,' said he, * but 
you cannot enforce it.' * We shall see,' I rejoined. 
We won the game on the hand, and, as they were at 
love, there was no necessity to claim the penalty. 
But thinking that, for once, I knew the rules better 
that he, I called for the code and placed Rule 61 
before him, triumphantly. ' Can't you read ? ' he 
said. * I am not ' a player who has rendered himself 
liable ; ' it was my partner who rendered me liable 
to have my highest card called. You have no penalty 
for my disobedience, save only that of not playing 
with me again. But please, don't do that, for I have 
got one or two more sells for you, and in time you'L 
know the rules.' 

" I was so vexed, I almost revoked next hand ; and 
have ever since prayed that Solomon or Lycurgus 
would arise and revise our Whist-laws." 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 197 

Law 33 always amuses me hugely. It informs us 
that " each player deals in his turn." This looks 
like a bit of any humor, especially as the law con- 
tinues, " The right of dealing goes to the left," re- 
minding one of the rule of the road : — 

" If you go to the left you are sure to go right, 
If you go to the right you go wrong." 

Law 84, limiting the power of consultation between 
partners, gives rise to numerous arguments and 
queries. After vainly endeavoring to = make it clear 

to two friends, B and S , that they are at 

liberty to consult as to which of them shall exact the 
penalty, but that they must not consult as to which 

penalty it is advisable to exact, B said, " I 

suppose I'm very dense, but for the life of me, I 
cannot understand it now." " No more can I," 

echoed S , " the Laws of Whist seem to me to 

have been invented for the express purpose of puz- 
zling people." 

Some of the laws certainly might be made more 
clear ; and I quite agree with S P that re- 
vision at the hands of a modern Solon or Lycurgus 
is desirable. 



Who has not experienced the truth of the proverb, 
" Ridiculum acri ? " No doubt a little playful banter 
will often carry a point, more surely, and apparently 
more convincingly, than the most carefully considered 
argument. A small instance of this occurs to me. 

While the laws of a certain game were under dis- 
cussion, I proposed a modification in one of the 
rules. 



19S CARD-TABLE TALK. 

My suggestion was at first vehemently opposed. 
After exhausting time and temper, on what appeared 
to me to be simply factious opposition, I gave up 
further argument, and closed my final reply in these 
terms : — 

"This appears to me to be common-sense, and 
therefore," — mark the therefore, — "I do not expect 
it will be adopted, common sense being, as Abernethy 
said, ' a very uncommon thing.' " 

The alteration I contended for was eventually car- 
ried by a large majority. 



Certainties, like infinities, may be of different 
orders. For instance, there is the absolute certainty 
and the moral certainty. That parallel lines can 
never meet is an absolute certainty ; laying against 
" dead'uns" is only a moral certainty. For dead'uns 
sometimes turn out to be real red-hot live'uns : wit- 
ness Hermit for the Derby. 

When I first joined the Whist Club, my rule 

was not to bet. But occasionally I was so pressed by 
a very indifferent player to " give " him a bet, that I 
yielded. As far as. play went it looked like a 
" moral." But I lost by it. 

I also laid the long odds sometimes. This is another 
"moral" in the long run; but for some months I 
lost by the odds. 

I won a majority of rubbers, but was out of pocket 
by these irregular bets. 

Meeting a friend at another club, he inquired, 
u How are you getting on at your new club ? " 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 199 

I puzzled him rather by replying " I should have 
done very well if I had not been betting on cer- 
tainties." 

Another illustration of the uncertainty of certain- 
ties occurs to me in the story of the Whist-player, 
who had a way of saying, by way of joke, that "he 
believed in nothing but the Ace of Trumps." Even 
this rag of a belief was snatched from him in the fol- 
lowing cruel manner : — 

Playing Whist at the M Club, the skeptic won 

a treble and four, when his opponents called for new 
cards. The next hand the skeptic won six tricks, and 
still holding ace of trumps, placed it on the table, 
observing, "There's the game and rubber." 

His right-hand adversary, however, produced 
another ace of trumps (the pack as occasionally 
happens with new cards, containing a duplicate), and 
consequently there had to be a fresh deal ; and the 
skeptic eventually lost the rubber. 



Travellers tell us that savages cannot count 
beyond ten. Long experience -at Whist has con- 
vinced me that it is far more difficult than is com- 
monly supposed for civilized people to count thirteen; 
for how often it happens that even good players 
excuse a mistake by saying they thought there was 
another trump in, or they had miscounted the 
spades, 



After I had played Whist a few times with H. H. 
the M , he said to me. " I did not know 



200 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

until yesterday that I was a pupil of yours. I used 
to be a very bad player till I got your book." 

•'I feel greatly flattered, M ," I replied, "by 

your notice. I hope it has turned out a profitable 
investment." 

"Oh, no ! " he said, "it has not. Since I studied 
the game I have lost thousands." 

The M was considerably above an average 

player and did not play high; so his " thousands' ' 
must have been a humorous exaggeration. 



A lady friend of mine, residing in Buckinghamshire, 
was playing Whist at Latimer, and Lord Chesham 
(whose family name is Cavendish), was her partner. 
He played in some way quite contrary to rule, and 

Mrs. H , who was a book-player, said to him in 

the course of conversation, "You should read the 
book 'Cavendish.'" 

Lord Chesham was very much astonished at being 
addressed, as he supposed, thus familiarly by a lady 
visitor ; and it had to be explained to him that Mrs. 

H was recommending a book on Whist for his 

perusal. 



Going into the card-room of a country club one 
day, I was invited to cut in, and it so happened that 

my partner, a Major S , was the only player in 

the room to whom I was not personally known. The 
Major dealt, and just before he turned up he said to 
me, 

'* Do you play the call for trumps ? " 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 201 

The shout of laughter with which the other players 
greeted this question rather disconcerted my gallant 
partner. 

It should be added for the benefit of those who are 
not club-players, that this question was by no means 
unusual some years ago. 



Scene, library in a private house. After dinner, 

Whist going on. Dramatis persona : Col. I (the 

host, a man of classical attainments); F N 

(a facetious man); X (an uneducated man, whom 

Col. I has picked up at the last minute to make 

a fourth) ; and H J . 

F. iV. (having won the odd trick). — That's the dolus 
or trick. 

Col, I. — I never knew dolus meant " the odd trick " 
opens book-case and takes down Latin dictionary). 

Tutti. — Now, Colonel, table up. (The Colonel puts 

down the dictionary. H J , who has cut out, 

takes it up. At the end of the hand), 

H.J. — Here it is. "Dolus, an artful contrivance, 
cunning device, trick. Doctus dolus, a clever trick." 

Fresh hand begins. X wins the odd trick by 

a desperate finesse. 

X. — There you are, Colonel ! There's a doctor's 
bolus for vou ! 



Scene, a Whist Club. Dramatis persona: R 

D D (a most accomplished player) and 

H J partners; Capt. P (an adversary of 

moderate capacity). 



202 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

P ? s score is three. D and J have made 

five tricks. D opens a fresh suit, spades, of which 

J holds ace, queen, and two small ones. J 

does not finesse the queen, but plays ace to save the 

game. The king of spades happens to be to J 's 

right. Eventually D and J lose the odd 

trick. 

J. (jokingly and ironically to his partner). — I lost 
the odd trick there, by bad play. 

D— HoW? 

J. — Not finessing the queen of spades. 

P. — Capital ! I like to see these Professors make 
mistakes. What made you do it ? 

«7. (with asperity). — It so happened that that trick 
saved the game ! (Collapse of P .) 

D. (coming to P 's rescue). — It did not save the 

game unless I had an honor. 

J. (with more asperity). — It so happened that you 
turned up the knave ! (Collapse of D .) 



I have stated that all the anecdotes in table-talk 
are true. I do not vouch for the one below, but give 
it as I heard it. 

A rubber was going on at the Portland. Five tricks 
had been played, of which H had won two, con- 
sequently eight cards remained in his hand. He put 
kis hand of cards on the table to take a pinch of 
snuff, and by mistake, took up the two tricks before 
him instead of his own cards. They happened to be 
two tricks in trumps containing all the honors. He 
trumped the next trick, played out the trumps, and 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 203 

necessarily won the game, and no one observed 
what had happened until it was pointed out by a 
bystander. 

This sounds very like a canard ; but an old mem- 
ber of the club assured me that it actually occurred. 



Scarcely a less extraordinary thing happened 
when Lord Lytton, Clay, my father, and another 
member, whose name I forget, were playing at the 
Portland. They were using two white packs, and a 
trick from one pack got mixed with the other, so 
that one pack contained forty-eight cards, the other 
fifty-six. The imperfect pack was dealt with, and 
after two or three tricks were played the hand was 
abandoned, and a treble scored. The redundant 
pack was then dealt with, but a misdeal was made. 
Had it not been so the duplicate cards must have 
been discovered. 

The third deal was a repitition of the first, and a 
bumper was won with forty-eight cards. 

The circumstance would never have been brought 
to light at all had not my father thought that some 
one was u bottling " the ace of diamonds ; and when 
the cards were thrown down he examined them to 
ascertain who had it. He then discovered that there 
was no ace of diamonds in the pack. He at once 
privately consulted a bystander as to the proper 
course to pursue — whether he ought to take the 
points or not. The bystander said that the adver- 
saries having abandoned the rubber, it was too late 
for them to plead that it had not been properly won. 



204 CARD-TABLE TALK. 



(See Law 59.) After the settlement my father told 
the players what had happened. The point as to the 
right of the winners to receive the points was referred, 
and was properly decided in accordance with the 
bystander's view already given. 

Perhaps a still more remarkable fact is that, after 
the rubber, all the players said they thought they 
had counted their hands before playing. 



When my book on Whist was first published, the 
authorship was kept a profound secret, I sent a 
copy, "with the author's compliments," to my father; 
and great was the amusement of my brother (who 
knew all about it) and myself at the "governor's" 
guesses as to where it could have come from. 

One evening when about to play a family rubber 
for love, we proposed to the " governor " to play one 
of the hands in the book, " to see if the fellow knew 
anything about it." He consented. We sorted one 
of the hands (Hand No. XXXVI., p. 246, 12th Edition, ) 
giving my father Y's hand, others of our circle taking 
the other hands, and my brother sitting out book in 
hand, to see whether we followed the "book " play. 

The " governor" played the hand all right till he 
came to the coup at trick 9, when he went on with his 
established diamonds. 

Frater (interrupting). — The book says that is wrong. 

Pater. — Well, what does the book say ? 

Frater. — The book says you should lead a trump. 

Pater. — But there are no more trumps in ! (Hesi- 
tates, and seeing that he has two trumps, and that 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 205 

leading one of them will not do any harm, leads 
it, and then turns round triumphantly and says), — 
Now what does the book say ? 

Frater (very quietly). — The book says you should 
lead another trump. 

This was too much. Lead a thirteenth trump 
whep you can give your partner a discard ! Oh, no I 
So the '-' governor" would not and did not lead the 
trump, and he scored four. 

We then persuaded him to play the hand again, 
and to lead the thirteenth trump. To his surprise he 
scored five. 

He then admitted it was " very good," but could 
not think who in the world had sent him that book. 



Of course, I seldom played at the same table with 
my father at the Portland. But it occasionally hap- 
pened that there was only one table, and that we 
must either play together or lose our amusement. 

On cme of these afternoons I was Z in Hand No. 
xxxvin. (12th Edition, p. 253), and my father wasB. 
By reference to the book it will be seen that I played 
the grand coup against him. 

My partner was a very good player. When the 
hand was over the following conversation took 
place : — 

K. (my partner to me). — You trumped my best 
diamond. 

Ego. — I know I did. We won the trick by it. 

K. — I don't see how you could win a trick by 
trumping a winning card ! 



206 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

I should mention that my father had seen the 
position as well as I had, that he knew I had three 
trumps (as was clear after my discard at Trick 8), 
and that he was waiting to be led to in trumps. I 
noticed, too, from his manner, that he hardly knew 
whether to feel pleased at my good play, or annoyed 
at being out-manceuvred. 

Ego (to K). — Ask the " governor " if we didn't. 

Pater (gruffly). — Of course you did, of course you 
did". 

I afterwards told Clay of this coup, and he was 
good enough to say that he admired the discard of 
the king of spades at Trick 8. 

He also chaffed the " governor " a bit about my 
" unfilial conduct." 



According to my experience the opportunity for 
playing the grand coup occurs about once in a thou- 
sand rubbers ; to an individual player about once in 
four thousand rubbers. 

I can only remember to this date (January, 1879) 
to have played it eight times. 



The secret of my nom de plume, of course, oozed 
out by degrees. The process of oozing occasionally 
led to odd positions. 

One day my partner, Col. the Hon. P F , 

asked me point-blank, across the table, if I knew who 
the author was. Bushe, my adversary, who was in 
the secret, pointed out the author to my partner, 
much to his astonishment. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 207 



^t dinner, at a friend's house, Mr. Q , a stranger 

to me, whoin I afterwards dieovered to be a more 

than average player, remarked to our host, P , 

a] so a Whist-player, that he had had a curious hand 
at Whist from which he thought it doubtful which 
card should be led originally. The hand was as fol- 
lows :— -Ace, king, queen of spades ; nine, eight, six, 
four, three of hearts ; eight of clubs ; and ace, king, 
queen, three of diamonds (trumps). Score, love-all. 

P , being in the secret, turned to me and said, 

" Jones, what is your opinion ? " 

I replied, I thought there was no sufficient reason 
for departing from the rule of leading the longest 
suit, and that I should start with a small heart. 

Q. — I don't think the lead can be decided off-hand 
in that way. However, I have written to " Caven- 
dish" about it. 

P. (humorously). — I have already submitted it to 
1 ' Cavendish, " and he said he should lead a small 
heart. 

Q. (surprised). — How on earth could you have done 
that ! The case only occurred last night, and this is 
the first time I have mentioned it to anyone. 

P. (always ready for a joke). — What I have told 
you is the fact. 

Q. (puzzled, and a little up in his stirrups). — I sup- 
pose I may believe the evidence of my own senses. 

P and I then looked at each other and laughed 

so heartily that Q said — 

" There can be only one explanation of the matter. 
Mr. Jones, you must be " 

" Quite so," said P 



208 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

From a Whist point of view the hand just given* is 
interesting, good judges differing as to which of three 
suits should be led originally. 

The cards it will be remembered were as follows : — 
Ace, king, queen of spades ; nine, eight, six, four, 
three of hearts ; eight of clubs ; and ace, king, queen, 
three of diamonds (trumps). 

The hand was shewn to a large number of players 
of repute. Some would lead one, some two, some 
three rounds of trumps ; and after leading trumps 
some would proceed with the spade suit, some with 
the heart suit. Others would not touch a trump at 
all, but would lead in the first instance either a spade 
or a heart. Others would lead a round of trumps, 
then a round of spades, then a heart. The majority 
were in favor of an original spade lead. 

I did not ask any players who are in the habit of 
opening the hand with a single card, or I could have 
got plenty of opinions in favor of a club lead. 

Petrie, a fine player of the old school, was in favor 
of a spade lead. He wrote me as follows : — 

" If my partner can make a couple of tricks, I 
expect to win the game, as I can reasonably expect 
to make seven tricks myself. Establishing the hearts 
would, therefore, form no part of my scheme. I 
should lead spades, and if they yielded three rounds 
should go on with the hearts. I am opposed to a 
trump lead, preferring to lie quiet, when I am pretty 
sure to realize four tricks in the suit." 

Q , the player to whom the hand was actually 

dealt, led a spade. His partner dropped the eight. 
Q then played a second round, to which his part- 
ner threw the knave. Q then led a third round, 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 209 

to see what his partner discarded. It turned out that 
the second hand had six spades originally, so the 
fourth hand made a small trump, and led a club. 
The command of the club suit lay with the present 

leader and his partner. Q was forced, and only 

made the odd trick, though his partner had a fine 
heart suit and four trumps. 

My objection to the spade lead is that its policy 
lies chiefly in the hope that spades may go round 
three times. If three rounds of spades are decided on, 
why not first extract three rounds of trumps ? Also, 
supposing the spades do go round three times, I am 
then driven to the heart suit, after having parted 
with the command of spades. And I fail to perceive 
that this postponement of the lead from the long suit 
in any way improves my partner's chance of making 
the two tricks I require from him. 

Clay's opinion, which is most interesting, was as 
under : — 

" I am convinced that the right way to lead from 
this hand is either to begin with a heart, or to lead 
first one round of trumps. You play to win the 
game, which you can hardly do unless your partner 
has strength in hearts, or trumps the suit. I incline 
to the trump lead. I think one is bound to give one's 
partner some intimation of considerable strength. It 
is a risk. No doubt, the trump lead will take from 
him a trump, with which he might trump a heart ; 
but the risk ought to be run, in order to show your 
partner that you play to win the game. If you take 
a round of trumps, is it to be with the king or the 
queen ? I think the queen ; for if you play the king 
and stop, your partner looks for ace, knave, in your 

14 



310 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

hand, and feels himself obliged to play a trump when 
he comes in. On the other hand, your queen may 
puzzle him ; yet he can hardly think that ace and 
king are held up against you. When you change 
your suit, if he is intelligent, he guesses how things 
are. 'My partner,' he says, 'is very strong in 
trumps, most probably had the tierce major ; but his 
suit is a long weak one, and he will not draw the 
trumps until he sees whether I can help him.' If he 
reasons thus, as he ought to do, he plays accordingly. 
— the trump if he has a good heart suit, — something 
else if he is weak in hearts, I have asked George 
Payne his opinion . I consider that he has the greatest 
genius for the game of any man I know. He would 
begin with the heart. He is an imperfect player 
from his long practice with muffs, and his habit of 
betting on races, &c, during the play of the hand. 
But he is a real genius, and there is no one like him 
to play with muffs, and guess, as it were by inspira- 
tion, all their absurdities.' ' 

My objection to Clay's trump lead, with great 
deference, is that I could not pick out any good 
player who would not return the trump lead the 
moment he got in. 

I lead the heart. My object is to establish the 
heart, if my partner has strength in the suit, to force 
him if he has not. 

The only argument I can see against the heart lead 
is, that if one adversary is strong in hearts, and the 
other weak in hearts and short of spades, a double 
ruff may be established. This I look on as an off- 
chance. 

I do not begin with a trump lest my partner should 



CARD-TABIiE TAIiK. 211 



be numerically weak in hearts and trumps. I do not 
begin with the spade, because I want the spades as 
cards of re-entry. 

Suppose the same hand with the knave instead of 
the queen of spades. All doubt vanishes, the heart 
is then clearly, to my mind, the right lead. I cannot 
see that the substitution of the knave for the queen 
of spades so affects the hand as to alter its scheme. 



Apropos of the hand just discussed, I asked Clay's 
permission to publish his opinion in The Field, with 
his name attached. 

He replied as follows : — 

" My dear Jones, — I feel it a compliment that you 
make use of my letter, though I should have written 
it more carefully if I had anticipated print. 

"Your objection to the trump lead is strong. It 
would have been decisive, if I fully agreed with your 
premises, but I don't think it wants ' an angel' to 
refrain from returning the trump lead. I think that 
most very good players, say Petrie, Storey, Hermann, 
and many others, and, I am sure yourself, would not 
return the tramp, unless strong in hearts. l The 
queen of trumps ' they would say, — •' rather a queer 
card, — can't possibly be a singleton, — almost sure to 
be the bottom of tierce major. Why doesn't he go 
on ? He wants to show me his strength in trumps, 
but has weak suits, — his hearts the best, — he wishes 
to see whether I can help him there, or anywhere 
else — and leaves me to decide whether it is well to 
draw the trumps. 

"This appears to me very simple, all the more sim- 



212 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

pie that it is the first card played, from which every 
one looks for some inkling as to the general scheme 
of the hand. I should most certainly reason thus, 
but you flatter me in saying that I alone should do 
so. You would, undoubtedly, unless you were play- 
ing carelessly, and so would many other players, less 
good, and less given to reflection than yourself. 

" Think of this ; the card, — itself unusual. — the 
changing suit, — all call for thought in the partner, 
and seem to say, — ' Now think a bit, and mind what 

you are at, — -don't play like , machinale- 

ment. 

lt Quce oum ita sint, the queen of trumps if your 
partner is a very good player, — a heart if he is not. 
My mind is made up, and I won't unpack it. 

" I don't say that in a similar difficulty, later in the 
hand, similar reflections would pass through my 
mind. They ought to do, — but one has generally 
taken up some idea, or scheme, which one does not 
readily abandon. The first card ! This makes a 
great difference — does it not ? It comes on you just 
as you are putting things in order for the general 
scheme. You must think then, if ever. 

"I think you'll come round to my notion, though 
you mayn't confess it,-— at least, not in print. 

" Yours very truly, 

James Clay." 

It appears to me that we were as nearly agreed 
as possible; but Clay assumed that, with certain 
partners, the trump lead would be safe to be under- 
stood, while I assumed that it would probably be 
misunderstood. 



CARP-TABLE TALK. 213 



I am still in doubt as to the best lead, but think 
that with ' an angel' for a partner one round of 
trumps, as a feeler, would be right. This was Her- 
mann's view, a man of deep Whist perception. 

With ninety-nine partners out of a hundred, or 
even nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand, 
I think the heart would be the right lead. 

These arguments result in a very singular conclu- 
sion, viz., that the suit to be led originally, — the first 
card of the hand, — will sometimes depend on who is 
your partner. 



The question is often put to me, " Why did you 
choose the nom de plume of ' Cavendish I ' " 

I can honestly say that on first rushing into print I 
had no idea any particular value attached to the 
copyright of a small book, or to an author's nom de 
plume. So I gave the matter of pseudonym but little 
thought, and stuck down on the title page the name 
of a club where I used to play small Whist. 

Assistance received from Clay has already been ac- 
knowledged ; and it may be added that almost every 
book bearing my nom de plume is more or less in- 
debted to several friendly helpers. 

In the case of Whist, the idea of publishing hands 
played completely through is not mine ; nor is the 
scheme mine of giving reasons and arguments for all 
the principles of play, instead of stating them, as was 
previously done, in the form of isolated and arbitrary 
conventions. I have only clothed with words, — and 
indeed not always that— the results of the discussions 

of E W , D J , W 

10 



214 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

D a -, and C B C , all 

valued friends, and members of the " little school " 
that obtained notoriety in 1871, in consequence of an 
article on Whist which appeared in the Quarterly 
Review, in January of that year. 

The writer of that article said, — 

" Between 1850 and 1860, a knot of young men at 
Cambridge, of considerable ability, who had at first 
taken up Whist for amusement, found it offer such a 
field for intellectual study, that they continued its 
practice more systematically, with a view to its com- 
plete scientific investigation. Since the adoption of 
Short-Whist, the constant practice of adepts had led 
to the introduction of many improvements in detail, 
but nothing had been done to reduce the modern 
play into a systematic form, or to lay it clearly before 
the public. Its secrets, so far as they differed from the 
precepts of Hoyle and Matthews, were confined to 
small coteries of club-players. The "1 little Whist- 
school held together afterwards in London, and 
added to its numbers ; and, in 1862, one of its mem- 
bers brought out the work published under the name 
of ' Cavendish.' " 

Now, to an article in the Quarterly there is no 
direct reply, as correspondence is not there permitted. 
It seems, however, that a writer in the Morning Post 
took umbrage at the above-quoted passage ; and in 
that paper he poured out the vials as follows : — 

" ' Cavendish,' who, in his modest preface, makes 
no profession of originality so far as rules or princi- 
ples are concerned, strange to say, does not so much 
as allude to the 'little Whist-school,' to which he 
must have been so largely indebted. Stranger still, 



CARD-TABI/E TALK. 215 

none of the most celebrated Whist-players appear to 
have been aware of the existence of this school, nor 
of any school that could possible have formed an 
epoch, in the last twenty years. * * * That Graham's 
the greatest of card-clubs, did nothing to reduce the 
modern play into a systematic form — leaving it to be 
perfected, not by the Portland, the next greatest of 
Whist-clubs, but by a knot of young men at Cam- 
bridge — is one of the most startling paradoxes I ever 
remember to have met. Shades of Granville, Sefton, 
De Ros, Beschapelles, Aubrey, George Anson, Henry 
Bentinck, John Bushe, Charles Greville ! is it come 
to this ? Why, of the greatest living players there is 
hardly, one who did not graduate in honors more 
than twenty years ago. And Whist is much in the 
same condition as art, literature, statesmanship, elo- 
quence, and fashion. Its brightest illustrations be- 
long to a preceding generation, or to one that is fast 
dying out. 

'An Amateur." 

To this I replied in the Morning Post, as under: — 
" I ask space to set your readers right with the 
1 knot of young men ' who are rather unkindly dealt 
with by ' An Amateur.' Your correspondent insinu- 
ates that this set of young men ignored Graham's 
and the Portland, and all former rules and principles, 
and went to work to elaborate a theory of their own, 
independently of all the most celebrated players, and 
that, in consequence, they compassed the complete 
development of the game of Whist, and brought it to 
its present scientific state. This is a most unfair way 
to view the discussions of half-a-dozen private gentle- 



216 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

men, who really did not know that they were doing 
anything but enjoying themselves over a half-crown 
rubber. Moreover, it ['An Amateur's ' letter] is a tra 
vestie of the story in the Quarterly. * * * The writer 
in the Quarterly does not assert that alolr, even the 
greater part, of the improvements in the game, since 
the time of Hoyle, were originated by a knot of young 
men at Cambridge. All he states is, that, through 
the agency of these young men, it happened that the 
game was first presented to the public in a systematic 
form. The Quarterly Reviewer admits that the se- 
crets or principles of the modern game were known 
to coteries of club-players. All he contends for is 
that they had never been published, or, to quote his 
own words, 'laid clearly before the public.' * * * 
Your correspondent says that, in my preface, I make 
no allusion to the ' little Whist-School,' to which I 
' must have been so largely indebted.' The reason is 
obvious. The gentlemen referred to by the Quarterly 
certainly did not consider themselves a ' school ' in 
the sense of being founders of an epoch in the game. 
They merely met together and discussed, according 
to their lights, the ideas of the best players to whom 
they had access ; and I, as one of them, must plead 
guilty to having ultimately thrown out the results 
of such discussions in the form of a systematic 
treatise." 

W D Gr , one of the little school, also 

wrote to the same effect. He added two points of de- 
tail — viz., that the little school consisted originally of 
five members \ that they began to study the game in 
1854 ; and that, as they could not find any treatise 
in existence from which the game could be learnt, 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 217 

they habitually referred points of difficulty to the 
leading players of the Portland Club, — notably to 
Mr. Clay, — though other members kindly gave their 
opinion from time to time. 

To these letters, " An Amateur " responded to the 
following effect : — 

It was far from his thoughts to hurt the feelings or 
deny the merits of the little school. The tendency of 
his remarks was to show that they did nothing ex- 
traordinary, elaborated nothing, compassed nothing. 
They were doubtless as surprised to hear they had 
been creating a system or advancing a science, as M. 
Jourdain was to find he had spoken prose all his life 
without knowing it. But the morning after the ap- 
pearance of the Quarterly they awoke and, like By- 
ron after the publication of " Childe Harold," found 
themselves famous. "An Amateur " specially con- 
tests, with several arguments, the proposition assert- 
ing or assuming the marked influence of the school ; 
and, inasmuch as they regularly referred to the Port- 
land in their difficulties, the very utmost they could 
have done was to suggest the production of a syste- 
matic treatise to their Corypheus, who naturally con- 
sulted the highest authorities, oral and written. 

There was no further correspondence in the Post* 
But other papers took up the subject. A leader 
appeared in the Daily Telegraphy which is so cleverly 
and amusingly written that I make no excuse for 
quoting it in extenso : — 

11 Daily Telegraph," January 31, 1871. 

" In the midst of these wars, and rumors of wars, 
it is pleasant to find that in the world there is yet 



218 CARD-TABI/E TA*LK- 

room for hostilities of a less sanguinary kind. Whilst 
all are looking for the latest telegrams from Versailles, 
a few can still busy themselves with letters, and re- 
plies to letters, in the great Whist-Controversy. The 
question seems to be this : To what degree of credit 
are the five * Friends in Council ' entitled, who, from 
the year 1854 or thereabouts, met in secret conclave, 
and meditated much on the problems presented by 
this attractive game ? The practical outcome of their 
deliberations is to be found in the little treatise on 
Whist which bears the honored name of ' Cavendish.' 
We have all read that valuable book, but without 
being at all aware that we were treading on danger- 
ous ground. The article in the last number of the 
Quarterly Review seems to have originated the dis- 
pute in the columns of a fashionable contemporary — 
or, more properly speaking, the dispute has grown 
out of it. Did ' Cavendish ' and his four friends con- 
stitute a school ? Did they pretend to be a school at 
all ? Was there any learned Whist before their day ? 
or had such learning as existed merely fallen into 
desuetude in consequence of the changes in the theory 
and style of play ? In fact, what had been done be- 
fore the time of * Cavendish ' and his friends, * to re- 
duce the modern play into a systematic form, or to 
lay it clearly before the public ' ? Many rash and 
misguided persons may be of the hasty opinion that 
here is the old story of a storm in a teapot. With 
what amount of laurel shall the head of the gallant 

1 Major A ' be crowned ? What has ' Ccelebs ' of 

the Portland done for the world in general and 
Whist-societies in particular ? Is ' Cavendish ' a true 
man, or a mere buckram pretender, and his foxrr 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 219 

friends aiders and abettors in the sham ? We will 
say nothing about the venerable Hoyle, who might 
have deserved the respect of ' Sarah Battle' and 
ladies and gentlemen of her standing — but who, for 
us, is clearly out of date. But how about Mathews ? 
Time was when we used to hear Whist-adepts rave 
about Mathews. If Mathews were with you it signi- 
fied not if all the world were against you. We do not 
affect to speak with authority, but our surmise would 
be that real Whist-antiquaries would even in the 
present day recognize the merits of a writer who 
stood between the two systems. For modern use, and 
by modern usage, we should say that there are three 
treatises upon Whist which are habitually referred to 
and quoted by players. The first in date would be 

that of * Major A ,' published originally in 1835. 

Then we have ■ Coelebs,' who hails from the Portland, 
and who dates from that sacred locality, in 1858. 
Finally, we have the little treatise of * Cavendish,' 
which seems to be of the year 1862. At any rate, one 
of the angry disputants, who does not appear to be 
partial to 4 Cavendish ' and his friends, asks in a high 
strain of moral indignation, ' Was there no treatise 
in existence from which the game could be learnt 
prior to 1862 ? ' Now, as this is a stone hurled into 
the little camp of the ' Cavendishes,' it does not seem 
to be a rash conjecture that the year named was the 
one in which they enlightened mankind, for the first 
time, on the subject of ' Short- Whist.' At any rate, 
if we are wrong upon this important point, most per- 
sons will agree with us in thinking that it does not 
much matter. We make no mention of Mr. James 
Clay, the vir pietate gravis of Short- Whist. Why 



220 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

should he be drawn into the dispute save for honor- 
able mention ? 

H One can't help thinking of the old story of Uncle 
Toby and the Fly. There surely was room enough 
in the world for ' Major A ,' ' Ccelebs,' and ' Caven- 
dish.' Why should such clever fellows fall out, and 
upon the subject of a mere game ? So it is, however. 

Of ' Major A ' in person — whether he be an actual 

warrior still on half-pay — or, as one may say, a gal- 
lant ghost — we need say nothing; but we should 
presume that the ' Major ' had been snatched away 
from his club long ago. Dr. Pole, however, wrote a 

preface to the treatise of ' Major A ' in 1864, and 

appears to have observed a contemptuous silence 
with regard to the efforts of the ' Cavendish ' clique 
or school. This was rather ill-natured, but is a mere 
trine when compared with the general fierceness of 

•Amateur,' a deyoted partizan of * Major A 's,' 

who dates from the Athenaeum Club in the present 
year. ■ Amateur ' can only see through ' Major 

A 's ' spectacles, and hates the poor Cavendishites. 

as one may say, like poison. Surely it is a little 
spiteful to lug in the unfortunate and celebrated 
Tailors in Tooley-street because * Cavendish ' and his 
friends were originally five in number— that is, writes 
1 Amateur,' * two more than the Tailors in Tooley- 
street.' * Cavendish' might reply, in the same 
humorous way, that * Amateur,' was two less than 
the Tailors in Tooley-street. Of course, it is not for 
us to say whether Dr. Pole meant mischief to * Caven- 
dish' and his party when he wrote in 1870, — ' Never 
once alluding to ' Cavendish ' and his school ' — as 
follows : * Some of the later works published on 



CARD-TABIiE TALK. 221 

Whist have been more explanatory than the early 
ones, but still they have consisted at best of merely 
practical rules without reference to their theoretical 
basis.' This, in the opinion of * Amateur,' is a coup- 
de- grace to l the little school and their Corypheus.' 

Well, then, as * Major A ,' or at least the Major's 

friends, appear to think so slightly of other Whist- 
pundits, let us see in what estimation he and his work 
are held by competent men. Here is an expression of 
opinion from 'Coelebs ' of the Portland. The public, 
we are very confident, will forgive the quotation — it 
reads so like the utterance of one old German Gram- 
marian against another who entertained perilous 
views on the subject of a second aorist. Listen to 
■ Ccelebs ' : " The introduction of Short- Whist called 
forth in 1836 the work known under the nom de plume 

of * Major A .' With verbose augmentations, the 

author's instructions are nearly identical with those 
of Mathews, like whom he despises any approach to 
methodical arrangement, continually repeating simi- 
lar maxims, separating exceptions from rules, and ex- 
amples from both, jumbling original data with deriv- 
ative results, presenting altogether such a labyrinth 
of advice and apparent inconsistency as no pupil 
can easily unravel. A ' little learning ' is the sure 
result of such immethodical treatises not embracing 
any general outline before descending to minutiae." 

So far, 'Coelebs,' on 'Major A- .' who is dear to 

'Amateur,' who again scorns 'Cavendish' and his 
friends, and who suggests by implication that they 
are tailors. 

"Surely all this is a little foolish, inasmuch as we 
have never even heard it suggested that the object of 



222 % CARD-TABLE TALK. 

any of the parties was to hold himself out as the 
author and proprietor of the stock work upon Whist. 
Such a course would be intelligible enough on 
obvious grounds ; but here is rather a question of 
vanity than of profit. The strictures of ' Amateur ' 
roused ' Cavendish ' from his rubber at the Portland. 
He writes a iittle on his own account, but a good 
deal on behalf of his friends. He exclaims against 
the propriety of bringing them before the public at 
all, inasmuch as they simply met to play their rubber 
for half-crown points, and never assumed the charac- 
ter of a school at all. True it is, as * Cavendish ' and 
they were jointly interested in the game, they used to. 
discuss together any points which might arise, and 
endeavored to raise themselves to the level of modern 
practice. The result of their discussions was the 
treatise of c Cavendish,' but they had arrived at their 
results by fair reasoning and by referring points of 
difficulty for the judgment of the leading players at 
the Portland Club. ' In this way they became ac- 
quainted with the latest developments of the game.' 
1 Cavendish ' claims that the modern game was first 
presented to the public in a systematic form in con- 
sequence of these discussions and these references. 
He does not pretend to have invented what was new. 
The principles of the new game were well known to 
coteries of club-players : ' Cavendish' did his best to 
collect these, and to lay them before the public in a 
systematic form. This it is which puts * Amateur ' 
in such a towering passion, since it is his opinion 

that ' Major A ,' as his work was developed, had 

done all that was necessary under this head. The 
publication of the article in the ' Quarterly,' which 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 223 



was favorable to the pretensions of * Cavendish ' cum 
suis, furnished the immediate occasion of this dispute. 
Ordinary people have derived occasional help from 
these treatises, though it is not often that the moder- 
ate player in real life sets himself down to consider 
on what principle he should avoid leading from ace, 
knave or ten. The thing is so, and there is good 
reason for it ; but the higher learning of the game 
has little interest for any but professional players — 
if the word may be used without offence. As the 
matter "stands at present, the question seems to be. 

Was * Major A ' or ' Cavendish' first in the field 

with an exposition of the secrets of the new play 
which, until a certain date, were confined to the 
reverend bosoms of aged club-players? There are 
men living who should be able to decide this knotty 
point ; in the mean while, it is far from disagreeable 
to get back to the old quarrels in which ink, not 
blood, is shed. In such controversies as the one now 
raging between ' Amateur ' and ' Cavendish ' there 
is no bitter end." 

The Daily News also had a leader, which though 
agreeable reading enough, adds nothing to the points 
of the controversy, and Bell's Life, Figaro, The 
Queen, and the Westminister Papers, each contri- 
buted their quantum of praise or blame, seriousness 
or chaff, according, I presume, to the frame of mind 
of the writers of the various articles. 

I will conclude this rather long effusion with The 
Field version of the discussion : — 



224 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

" The Field," Feb. 4th, 1871. 

" A rather amusing pen-and-ink contest has arisen 
this week on the subject of Whist. The questions 
s^m to be whether before the date of ' Cavendish ' 
the game of Whist had ever been treated on a syste- 
matic basis, and whether the gentlemen whose dis- 
cussions were published by * Cavendish ' are entitled 
to the credit of having exerted any marked influence 
on the Whist of the present day. We are inclined to 
the view that the first question should be answered 
in the negative, and the second in the affirmative. 
Had the knot of young men referred to in the Quar- 
terly never met, there would have been no ' Caven- 
dish,' and perhaps no Clay, no Pole, no article on 
Whist-players in Fraser nor in the Quarterly, no 
card department in The Field — in short, no modern 
scientific Whist published to the world. We direct 
our readers to a letter from * Cavendish ' in another 
column, which will enable them to judge as to the 
rights of this pretty little quarrel." 

I make no apology for quoting my own letter, 
which ran as follows : — 

"To the Editor of The Field. 

" Sir, — I trust I may be excused for entering on 
some personal matters in relation to Whist. You are 
of course aware that in the Quarterly Review for 
January appeared an article on modern Whist, con- 
taining a learned account of the history of the game, 
and concluding with a review of certain books. 

" In the course of the historical essay the following 
passage occurs : — 

" * Between 1850 and 1860 a knot of young men at 
Cambridge, of considerable ability, who had at first 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 225 

_ _____ % 

taken up Whist for amusement, found it offer such a 
field for intellectual study, that they continued its 
practice more systematically, with a view to its com- 
plete scientific investigation, Since the general 
adoption of Short- Whist, the constant practice of 
adepts had led to the introduction of many improve- 
ments in detail, but nothing had been done to reduce 
the modern play into a systematic form, or to lay it 
clearly before the public. Its secrets, so far as they 
differed from the precepts of Hoyle and Mathews, 
were confined to small coteries of club-players. The 
little Whist-school held together afterwards in Lon- 
don, and added to its numbers ; and, in 1862, one of 
its members brought out the work published under 
the name of ' Cavendish.' 

"This passage has been the subject of comment 
during the past week in several newspapers of high 
standing ; the points raised being, Did the * knot of 
young men ' originate, or elaborate, or compass any- 
thing ? or did they draw their inspiration from other 
sources, and merely arrange what was well known 
and procurable before ? 

u I think the knot of young men did originate 
something, and I believe that the result of their dis- 
cussions when put into book-form was more than a 
re-arrangement of previously existing matter. 

11 In order fairly to decide as to what was novel in 
their work, we must first notice what had been pre- 
viously done. Prior to the appearance of our trea- 
tise — I say ' our,' for without the valuable assistance 
of members of the little school I alone should not 
have rushed into print — the treatises in vogue were 
those of Hoyle, Matthews, and 'Coelebs.' 

15 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



" Of Hoyle it is impossible to speak but in terms of 
high praise, notwithstanding that his style was some- 
what obscure. His advice is mainly correct — won- 
derfully so if we consider that in his day the game 
was in its infancy. As an example, he pointed out 
that with king, queen, knave, and one small card 
the proper lead is the king ; but that with two small 
cards the proper lead is the knave. There was, how- 
ever, but little method in his treatment, and but 
little argument in his pages. He confined himself to 
stating cases, without entering into principles. I do 
not mean to say that he did not explain the reason 
for the difference in the two leads given as an ex- 
ample. He did so; but he stopped there. He did 
not generalize. The generalization of the above rule 
would be, that if you lead from a sequence, and de- 
sire your partner to win the card led, you should 
lead the lowest of the sequence; but that if you 
desire him to pass the trick, you should lead the 
highest. Nothing of this kind will be found in 
Hoyle. 

" Matthews or Mathews (for the name is spelt differ- 
ently in different editions) carried out a plan similar 
to that of Hoyle. He stated many cases of great 
interest, -and cases containing much instruction. As 
an example I may quote from memory the follow- 
ing : — ' Q. Having ace, knave, ten, and a small card, 
second hand, a small card being led, what should 
you play ? A. In plain suits the small card ; in 
trumps the ten. The reason is that a small card is 
never led from king, queen, in plain suits ; conse- 
quently one of those cards must be in the third or 
fourth hands, and the ten would be played to no 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 227 

purpose. But in trumps, king and queen may both 

'be in the leader's hand.' Matthews, like Hoyle, has 

no system, and he never refers to general principles. 

In fact, he only professes to give a selection of cases. 

"Of 'Major A ' I say nothing. 'Major A ' 

is merely Matthews done in Short-Whist, with irrel- 
elant additions. Thus, when Matthews says ' nine 
all,' 'Major A ' says 'four all,' and when Mat- 
thews says ' with queen, knave, put on your knave,' 

' Major A ' says ' do not put on your queen ; ' and 

so on through the whole book. 

" Ccelebs also gives cases and instructions, but there 
he stops ; he never rises to principles. He was, how- 
ever, well aware of the want of method in previous 
treatises. He arranges the subject judiciously, his 
defect being that he omits to trace the cases to their 
true source. 

" Now, without for one irioment underrating the 
services rendered to Whist by the authors referred to, 
I assert that the great fault in the manner of teach- 
ing which runs through them all is, that the rules of 
play are laid down by these writers in the form of 
isolated and arbitrary cases, and the general prin- 
ciples which overlie all these cases are never fully 
stated, though they are occasionally hinted at ; and 
hence the acquisition of knowledge from those books 
depends rather on effort of memory than on occupa- 
tion of the understanding. Rules alone, however 
correct, if not thoroughly comprehended, are often 
mischevious, as circumstances may require them to 
be departed from. In such position the player by 
mere rote is all at sea ; but the one who knows well 
the process of the derivation of the rules on which he 



228 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

acts has little difficulty in meeting and dealing with 
exceptional cases. 

" What I claim, then, by way of originality for the 
book of ' the little school ' is that, so far as in us lay, 
the reasoning on which the principles of play are 
based is given logically and completely. In this I 
believe that ' Cavendish ' differs materially from all 
prior treatises ; and if this be admitted it follows that 
the knot of young men did originate, did elaborate, 
did compass something. 

" As far as details are concerned, I fancy * the little 
school ' also did something ; but this is a minor mat- 
ter, and it is not denied that from time to time fresh 
details have sprung into life, and that some of them 
are considered improvements. Therefore, I will not 
enter into details. 

" But before closing this letter, I should like to put 
on record (since the subject is before the public) how 
it happened that a knot of young men, who merely 
met to enjoy and discuss a rubber, ever went into 
print at all. 

"When we used to meet in London, notes were 
occasionally made of points which interested us, and 
some experiments were tried, such as matching two 
bad players against two good ones, an account of 
which has already appeared in The Field, On other 
occasions, and for a long time, every hand was played 
out to the end, and the result put down on paper, in 
order to enable us to calculate the odds at different 
points of the game. The results of this experiment 
have also appeared in The Field. During these 
experimental rubbers we accumulated a lot of MSS. 
As far as I remember, we had some hazy and un- 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 229 

defined idea of publishing some day; but no one 
seemed to care about writing a book, and the papers 
were thrown into a drawer, and remained there, half- 
forgotten for several years. 

" It so happened, however, that in December, 1861, 
there appeared in Macmillan's Magazine an article 
on cards, recommending and describing Piquet and 
Bezique ; the latter was then scarcely played in this 
country. In a foot-note the writer expressed an 
opinion that some games at Whist might be advan- 
tageously published, on the same plan as that fol- 
lowed with games of chess. I happened to read the 
article, and I wrote to the author of the paper, offer- 
ing to lend him the MS. notes of the little school. 
This offer he accepted ; but I found, on rummaging 
them out, we had taken so much for granted in our 
memoranda that it was necessary, in order to make 
anyone else understand them, to re-write and to add 
copious notes. Presently I found that I had to repeat 
the same note ; so, in order to save the trouble of 
re- writing all the reasons for, say, causing A to lead 
from his strongest suit, I erected this into a principle, 
argued it out, and afterwards referred to principle 1. 
This was the skeleton of the book ; and, on being 
urged to publish, I obtained the co-operation of the 
members of the ' little school,' and, aided by their 
remarks and suggestions, appeared as an author. 
And, having talked a good deal about myself, I 
would add that, whatever originality there may be 
in our ' labor of love,' the credit is mainly due to my 
friends, towards whom I stand only in the relation 
of a mouthpiece. 

" The Author of ' Cavendish on Whist.' w 



230 OARD-TABLE TALK. 

The experiment just referred to, viz., the matching 
two good players against two bad ones, was under- 
taken in order to ascertain approximately the ad- 
vantage of skill. It arose and was conducted as 
follows : — 

In the latter part of the winter of 1857, during an 
after-dinner conversation, it was remarked by some 
of the party that Whist is a mere matter of chance, 
since no amount of ingenuity can make a king win 
an ace, and so on. This produced an argument as to 
the merits of the game ; and as two of the disputants 
obstinately maintained the original position, it was 
proposed to test their powers by matching them 
against two excellent players in the room. To this 
match, strange to say, the bad players agreed, and a 
date was fixed. Before the day arrived, it was pro- 
posed to play the match in double, another rubber of 
two good against two bad players being formed in an 
adjoining room, and the hands being played over 
again, the good players having the cards previously 
held by the bad ones, and vice versa, the order of 
the play being, of course, in every other respect pre- 
served. The difficulty now was to find two players 
sufficiently bad for the purpose ; but two men were 
found, on condition of having odds laid them at 
starting, which was accordingly done. 

On the appointed day, a table was formed in room 
A, and as soon as the first hand was played, the cards 
were re-sorted and conveyed into room B. There the 
hand was played over again, the good players in 
room B having the cards that the bad players had in 
room A. At the end of the hand, the result was 
noted for comparison, independently of the score, 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 231 

whicn was conducted in the usual way. Thirty-three 
hands were played in each room. In room A, the 
good players held very good cards, and won four rub- 
bers out of six ; in points, a balance of eighteen. In 
room B, the good players had, of course, the bad 
cards. They played seven rubbers with the same 
number of hands that in the other room had played 
six, and they won three out of the seven, losing seven 
points on the balance. The difference, therefore, was 
eleven points, or nearly one point a rubber in favor 
of skill. 

A comparison of tricks only showed some curious 
results. In seven of the hands the score by cards in 
each room was the same. In eighteen hands the 
balance of the score by cards was in favor of the 
superior players ; in eight hands in favor of the 
inferior. In one of these hands the bad players won 
two by cards at one table, and three by cards at the 
other. 

The most important result is, that at both tables 
the superior players gained a majority of tricks. In 
room A, they won on the balance nineteen by tricks ; 
in room B, they won two by tricks. 

It will be observed that this experiment does not 
altogether eliminate luck, as bad play sometimes suc- 
ceeds. But by far the greater part of luck, viz., that 
due to the superiority of winning cards, is, by the 
plan described, quite got rid of. 

Dr. Pole {The Field, June 16, 1866,) arrives at a 
result nearly the same by a statistical method. He 
writes to this effect : — 

'* It is very desirable to ascertain the value of skill 
at Whist. 



232 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

"The voluntary power we have over results at 
Whist is compounded of — 1. The system of play ; 2. 
the personal skill employed." 

The modern system, which combines the hands of 
the two partners, as against no system (the personal 
skill of all being pretty equal), is worth — Dr. Pole 
thinks — about half-a-point a rubber, or rather more. 
About nine hundred rubbers played by systematic as 
against old-fashioned players, gave a balance of 
nearly five hundred points in favor of system. 

The personal skill will vary with each individual, 
and is difficult to estimate ; but looking at published 
statistics, in which Dr. Pole had confidence, he puts 
the advantage of a very superior player (all using 
system), at about a quarter of a point a rubber. 
Consequently, the advantage due to combined per- 
sonal skill (i.e., two very skilful against two very un- 
skilful players, all using system), would be more than 
half a point a rubber. 

The conclusion arrived at by Dr. Pole is that " the 
total advantage of both elements of power over 
results at Whist, may, under very favorable circum- 
stances, be expected to amount to as much as one 
point per rubber." 

Now, at* play-clubs, nearly all the players adhere 
more or less closely to system, and the great majority 
have considerable personal skill. Consequently, only 
the very skilful player can expect to win anything, 
and he will only have the best player at the table for 
a partner on an average once in three times. It 
follows from this, that the expectation of a very 
skilful player at a play-club will only average, at 
the most, say a fifth or a sixth of a point a rubber. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 233 

January, 1879. — In Mortimer Collins' "Life," pub- 
lished not long since, it is stated that I told him I 
had played 20,000 rubbers in ten years, and that I 
had won £2,000. 

I will not enter into the question of the propriety 
of publishing gossip of this kind, and of giving names 
without permission. I am not ashamed of having 
played on an average half-a-dozen rubbers a day, 
nor of having won. But, had I been asked, I should 
certainly have refused permission to make my pri- 
vate affairs public. Many goody-goody people 
might think me very " horrid," to waste so much 
time at the card-table, and to play for so much 
money. 

The statement published by Mortimer Collins' 
widow is mere talk, and is devoid of all scientific 
interest. The amount of money won or lost is not 
any criterion of the result, unless the amount of the 
point is given, and the stakes are never changed. 
What is interesting is, to know what per-centage of 
advantage or disadvantage att ches to the individual 
in consequence of his personal skill, or the want of 
it. The way to arrive at this is to keep an account 
of a long series of rubbers ; the longer the series, 
the more closely the result will approximate to the 
truth. Even when arrived at, the answer will only 
be true for the individual, as against the set with 
whom he is the habit of contending. Deschapelles 
estimated his advantage at Long-Whist at a quarter 
of a point a rubber. My averages, at Short-Whist, 
are not nearly so good as this. But then Des- 
chapelles was facile princeps, and Long-Whist gives 
greater scope for play than Short. Again, I am in 



234 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

the habit of avoiding tables where the players are 
not pretty good. This must, of course, affect the 
averages. 

My averages are as under. I should premise that 
the rubbers to which the account refers were all 
played at clubs where good play was the rule. 
Whatever the results may be worth, I give them — 
from January, 1860, to December, 1878 : — 

Played in all • . 30,668 rubbers. 

Won 15,648 

Lost . 15,020 



Won . . 628 rubbers. 

Or, on the average, won one rubber in forty-nine, a 
trifle over two per cent. 

The points give the following averages : — 

Won in all . . • . 85,486 points. 
Lost . . . . . 81,055 " 



Won • . 4,431 points. 

Or, on the average, as nearly as possible, one-seventh 
of a point a rubber, 

The average value of a rubber is rather more than 
five points and two-fifths (5.43). The average value 
of rubbers won is 5.46 points ; of rubbers lost, is 5.40, 
giving a difference of six-hundredths (or about one- 
seventeenth) of a point per rubber in favor of 
winning rubbers over losing ones. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 235 

January, 1879. — During the last sixteen years I 
have answered in writing nearly 10,000 questions on 
the laws of games, chiefly Whist. But other games 
are often the subject of queries. My interrogators 
seem to think I ought to know the rules of all games, 
from pitch-and-toss to manslaughter. With a little 
trouble I generally manage to find some one who can 
inform me who is the best authority on bumble- 
puppy, or some other outlandish game, when I in 
turn become an interrogator. 

Some of the questions are very droll. The follow- 
ing, from a lady in the country, a total stranger, 
came to hand about Christmas, 1877 : — " May tee- 
totallers join in a game of snap-dragon ? " 



THE END. 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 

BY PERMISSION, VERBATIM FROM THE CLUB 
CODE. 

THE FOOT NOTES ARE ADDED BY THE AUTHOR, 



THE RUBBER. 

1. The rubber is the best of three games. If the 
first two games be won by the same players, the third 
game is not played. 

SCORING. 

2. A game consists of five points. Each trick, 
above six, counts one point. 

3. Honors, i.e., Ace, King, Queen, and Knave of 
trumps, are thus reckoned : 

If a player and his partner, either separately or 
conjointly, hold — 

I. The four honors, they score four points. 
IT. Any three honors, they score two points. 
III. Only two honors, they. do not score. 

4. Those players, who, at the commencement of a 
doal, are at the score of four, cannot score honors. 



238 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 



5. The penalty for a revoke* takes precedence 
of all other scores. Tricks score next. Honors 
last. 

6. Honors, unless claimed before the trump card 
of the following deal is turned up, cannot be scored. 

7. To score honors is not sufficient ; they must 
be called at the end of the hand ; if so called, they 
may be scored at any time during the game. 

8. The winners gain — 

I. A treble, or game of three points, when their ad- 
versaries have not scored. 
n. A double, or game of two points, when their ad- 
versaries have scored less than three. 
HI. A single, or game of one point, when their ad 
versaries have scored three, or four. 

9. The winners of the rubber gain two points (com- 
monly called the rubber points), in addition to the 
value of their games. 

10. Should the rubber have consisted of three 
games, the value of the losers' game is deducted from 
the gross number of points gained by their oppo- 
nents. 

11. If an erroneous score be proved, such mistake 
can be corrected prior to the conclusion of the game 
in which it occurred, and such game is not concluded 
v*ntil the trump card of the following deal has been 
turned up. 

12. If an erroneous score, affecting the amount of 
the rubber, f be proved, such mistake can be rectified 
at any time during the rubber. 

* Vide Law 72. 

t e.g. If a single is scored by mistake for a docblo or treble, or 
vice versd. 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 2Sj 



CUTTING. 

13. The ace is the lowest card. 

14. In all cases, every one must cut from the same 
pack. 

15. Should a player expose more than one card, he 
must cut again. 

FORMATION OF TABLE. 

16. If there are more than four candidates, the 
players are selected hy cutting : those first in the 
room having the preference. The four who cut the 
lowest cards play first, and again cut to decide on 
partners ; the two lowest play against the two high- 
est ; the lowest is the dealer, who has choice of cards 
and seats, and, having once made his selection, must 
abide by it. 

17. When there are more than six candidates, 
those who cut the two next lowest cards belong to 
the table, which is complete with six players ; on the 
retirement of one of those six players, the candidate 
who cut the next lowest card has a prior right to 
any after comer to enter the table. 

CUTTING CARDS OF EQUAli VALUE. 

18. Two players cutting cards of equal value,* un- 
less such cards are the two highest, cut again ; 

* In exiting for partners. 



240 THE LAWS OP WHIST. 



should they be the two lowest, a fresh cut is neces- 
sary to decide which of those two deals.* 

19. Three players cutting cards of equal value cut 
again ; should the fourth (or remaining) card be the 
highest, the two lowest of the new cut are partners, 
the lower of those two the dealer ; should the fourth 
card be the lowest, the two highest are partners, the 
original lowest the dealer, f 



CUTTING OUT. 

20. At the end of a rubber, should admission be 
claimed by any one, or by two candidates, he who 
has, or they who have, played a greater number of 
consecutive rubbers than the others is, or are, out ; 
but when all have played the same number, they 
must cut to decide upon the out-goers ; the highest 
are out. 

* Example' A three, two sixes, and a knave are cut. The two 
sixes cut again, and the lowest plays with the three. Suppose at the 
second cut, the two sixes cut a king and a queen, the queen plays 
with the three. 

If at the second cut a lower card than the three is cut, the three 
still retains its privileges as original low, and has the deal and choice 
of cards and seats. 

t Example. Three aces and a two are cut. The three aces cut 
again. .The two is the original high, and plays with the highest of 
the next cut. 

Suppose at the second cut, two more twos and a king are drawn. 
• The king plays with the original two, and the other pair of twos cut 
again for deal. 

Suppose instead, the second cut to consist of an ace and two 
knaves. The two knaves cut again, and the highest plays with the 
two 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 241 



BNTRY AND RE-ENTR'S'. 

21. A candidate wishing to enter a table must de- 
clare such intention prior to any of the players hav- 
ing cut a card, either for the purpose of commencing 
a fresh rubber, or of cutting out. 

22. In the formation of fresh tables, those candi- 
dates who have neither belonged to nor played at 
any other table have the prior right of entry ; the 
others decide their right of admission by cutting. 

23. Any one quitting a table prior to the conclusion 
of a rubber, may, with consent of the other three 
players, appoint a substitute in his absence during 
that rubber. 

24. A player cutting into one table, whilst belong 
ing to another, loses his right * of re-entry into that 
latter, and takes his chance of cutting in, as if he 
were a fresh candidate. f 

25. If any one break up a table, the remaining 
players have the prior right to him of entry into any 
other, and should there not be sufficient vacancies 
at such other table to admit all those candidates, 
they settle their precedence by cutting. 

SHUFFLING. 

26. The pack must neither be shuffled below the 
table nor so that the face of any card be seen. 

27. The pack must not be shuffled during the play 
of the hand. 

* i.e. his prior right. 

t And last in tho room (vide Law 1C). 



242 T™ LAWS OF WHIST. 

28. A pack, having been played with, must neither 
be shuffled, by dealing it into packets, nor across th< 
table. 

29. Each player has a right to shuffle, once only, 
except as provided by Rule 32, prior to a deal, after 
a false cut,* or when a new dealf has occurred. 

80. The dealer's partner must collect the cards 
for the ensuing deal, and has the first right to shuffle 
that pack. 

31. Each player, after shuffling, must place the 
cards, properly collected and face downwards, to the 
left of the player about to deal. 

32. The dealer has always the right to shuffle last : 
but should a card or cards be seen during his shuf- 
fling or whilst giving the pack to be cut, he may be 
compelled to re-shuffle. 

THE IDEAL. 

33. Each player deals in his turn; the right of 
dealing goes to the left. 

34. The player on the dealer's right cuts the pack, 
and in dividing it, must not leave fewer than four 
cards in either packet ; if in cutting, or in replacing 
one of the two packets on the other, a card be ex- 
posed, t or if there be any confusion of the cards, or a 
doubt as to the exact place in which the pack was 
divided, there must be a fresh cut. 

35. When a player, whose duty it is to cut, has 

* Vide Law 34. f Fitfe Law 37, 

t After the two packets have been re-united, Law 38 snmee into 
operation. 



THE LAWS OP WHIST. 243 

, ■ — ■ 

once separated the pack, he cannot alter his inten- 
tion ; he can neither re-shuffle nor re-cut the cards. 

36. When the pack is cut, should the dealer shuffle 
the cards, he loses his deal. 

A NEW DEAL. 

37. There must be a new deal * — 

I. If, during a deal, or during the play of a hand, the 

pack be proved incorrect or imperfect. 
H. If any card, excepting the last, be faced in the 
pack. 

38. If, whilst dealing, a card be exposed by the 
dealer or his partner, should neither of the adver- 
saries have touched the cards, the latter can claim a 
new deal ; a card exposed by either adversary gives 
that claim to the dealer, provided that his partner 
has not touched a card ; if a new deal does not take 
place, the exposed card cannot be called. 

39. If, during dealing, a player touch any of his 
cards, the adversaries may do the same, without los- 
ing their privilege of claiming a new deal, should 
chance give them such option. 

40. If, in dealing, one of the last cards be exposed, 
and the dealer turn up the trump before there is rea- 
sonable time for his adversaries to decide as to a fresh 
deal, they do not thereby lose their privilege. 

41 . If a player, whilst dealing, look at the trump 
card, his adversaries have a right to see it, and may 
exact a new deal. 

42. If a player take into the hand dealt to him a 
card belonging to the other pack, the adversaries, on 

* i. e., the same dealer must deal again. Vide also Laws 47 and 50. 



244 THS LAWS OF WHIST. 

discovery of the error, may decide whether they will 
have a fresh deal or not. 

A MISDEAL, 

48. A misdeal loses the deal.* 
44. It is a misdeal f — 

I. Unless the cards are dealt into four packets, one 

at a time in regular rotation, beginning with the 
player to the dealer's left. 

II. Should the dealer place the last (i.e., the trump) 

card, face downwards, on his own, or any other 
pack. 

HI. Should the trump card not come in its regular 
order to the dealer ; but he does not lose his 
deal if the pack be proved imperfect. 

V. Should a player have fourteen f cards, and either 
of the other three less than thirteen. § ■ 

V*. Should the dealer, under an impression that he 
has made a mistake, either count the cards on 
the table, or the remainder of the pack. 

VL Should the dealer deal two cards at once, or two 
cards to the same hand, and then deal a third ; 
but if, prior to dealing that third card, the 
dealer can, by alteriug the position of one card 
only, rectify such error, he may do so, except 
as provided by the second paragraph of this 
Law. 

VII. Should the dealer omit to have the pack cut to 
him, and the adversaries discover the error, 
prior to the trump card being turned up, and 
before looking at their cards, but not after hav- 
ing done so. 

* Except as provided inXaws 45 and 50. t Vide also Law 36. 
t Or more. § The pack being porfect. Vide Law 47. 



THE LA^S OF WHIST. 245 

45. A misdeal does not lose the deal if, during the 
dealing, either of the adversaries touch the cards 
prior to the dealer's partner having done so, but 
should the latter have first interfered with the cards, 
notwithstanding either or both of the adversaries 
have subsequently done the same, the deal is lost. 

46. Should three players have their right number 
of cards — the fourth have less than thirteen, and not 
discover such deficiency until he has played any of 
his cards,* the deal stands good ; should he have 
played, he is as answerable for any revoke he may 
have made as if the missing card, or cards, had been 
in his hand ; f ne may search the other pack for it, 
or them, 

47. If a pack, during or after a rubber, be proved 
incorrect or imperfect, such proof does not alter any 
past score, game, or rubber ; that hand in which the 
imperfection was detected is null and void; the 
dealer deals again. 

48. Any one dealing out of turn, or with the ad- 
versary's cards, may be stopped before the trump 
card is turned up, after which the game must pro- 
ceed as if no mistake had been made. 

49. A player can neither shuffle, cut, nor deal for 
his partner, without the permission of his opponents. 

50. If the adversaries interrupt a dealer whilst 
dealing, either by questioning the score or asserting 
that it is not his deal, and fail to establish such claim, 
should a misdeal occur, he may deal again. 

51. Should a player take his partner's deaL and 

* i. c, until after he has played to the first trick. 

♦ Vide also Law 70, and Law 44, paragraph iv. 



246 THE LAWS OF WHIST. 

misdeal, the latter is liable to the usual penalty, 
and the adversary next in rotation to the player who 
ought to have dealt then deals. 

THE TRUMP CARD. 

52. The dealer, when it is his turn to play to the 
first trick, should take the trump card into his hand ; 
if left on the table after the first trick be turned and 
quitted, it is liable to be called ; * his partner may 
at any time remind him of the liability. 

53. After the dealer has taken the trump card into 
his hand, it cannot be asked for ; f a player naming 
it at any time during the play of that hand is liable 
to have his highest or lowest trump called, t 

54. If the dealer take the trump card into his hand 
before it is his turn to play, he may be desired to lay 
it on the table ; should he show a wrong card, this 
card may be called, as also a second, a third, &c, 
until the trump card can be produced. 

55. If the dealer declare himself unable to recollect 
the trump card, his highest or lowest trump may be 
called at any time during that hand, and, unless it 
cause him to revoke, must be played ; the call may 
be repeated, but not changed, i. e., from highest to 
lowest, or vice versa, until such card is played. 

* It is not usual to call the trump card if left on the table, 
f Any one may inquire what the trump suit is, at any time. 
X In the manner described in Law. 



TKE LAWS OF WHIST. 247 



CARDS t.tatit.ti TO BE CALLED. 

56. All exposed cards are liable to be called, and 
must be left * on the table ; but a card is not an ex- 
posed card when dropped on the floor, or elsewhere 
below the table. 

The following are exposed f cards : — 

I. Two or more cards played at once. J 
EL Any card dropped with its face upwards, or in any 
way exposed on or above the table, even though 
snatched up so quickly that ho one can name it. 

57. If any one play to an imperfect trick the best 
card on the table, § or lead one which is a winning 
card as against his adversaries, and then lead again, || 
or play several such winning cards, one after the 
other, without waiting for his partner to play, the 
latter may be called on to win, if he can, the first or 
any other of those tricks, and the other cards thus 
improperly played are exposed cards. 

58. If a player, or players, under the impression 
that the game is lost — or won — or for other reasons — 
throw his or their cards on the table face upwards, 
such cards are exposed, and liable to be called, each 
player's by the a'dversary ; but should one player 
alone retain his hand, he cannot be forced to aban- 
don it. 

* Face upwards. 

t Detached cards (i.e., cards taken out of the hand but not dropped) 
are not liable to be called unless named; vide Law 60. It is imper 
taut to distinguish between exposed and detached cards. 

* If two or more cards are played at once, the adversaries Lave I 
right to call which they please to the trick in course of play, and af 
terwards to call the others. 

§ And then lead without waiting for his partner to play. 
II Without waiting for his partner to play. 



348 THE LAWS OF WHIST. 

59. If all four players throw their cards on the 
table face upwards, the hands are abandoned ; and 
no one can again take up his cards. Should this 
general exhibition show that the game might have 
been saved or won, neither claim can be entertained, 
unless a revoke be established. The revoking players 
are then liable to the following penalties : they can- 
not under any circumstances win the game by the re- 
sult of that hand, and the adversaries may add tnree 
to their score, or deduct three from that of the revok- 
ing players. 

60. A card detached from the rest of the hand so 
as to be named is liable to be called ; but should the 
adversary name a wrong card, he is liable to have a 
suit called when he or his partner have the lead.* 

01. If a player, who has rendered himself liable to 
have the highest or lowest of a suit called, fail to 
play as desired, or if when called on to lead one suit, 
lead another, having in his hand one or more cards 
of that suit demanded, he incurs the penalty of a re- 
voke. 

02. If any player lead out of turn, his adversaries 
may either call the card erroneously led — or may call 
a suit from him or his partner when it is next the 
turn of either of them f to lead. 

63. If any player lead out of turn, and the other 



* t.e., the first time that side obtains the lead. 

t i.e., the penalty of calling a suit must be exacted from whichever 
of them next first obtains the lead. It follows that if the player who 
leads ont of turn is the partner of the person who ought to have led, 
and a suit is called, it must be called at onco from the right leader. 
If he is allowed to p]ay as he pleases, the only penalty that romains is 
to call the card erroneously led. 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 249 

three have followed him, the trick is complete, and 
the error cannot be rectified ; but if only the second, 
or the second and third, have played to the false 
lead, their cards, on discovery of the mistake, are 
taken back ; there is no penalty against any one, ex- 
cepting the original offender, whose card may be 
called — or he, or his partner, when either of them* 
has next the lead, may be compelled to play any suit 
demanded by the adversaries. 

64. In no case can a player be compelled to play a 
card which would oblige him to revoke. 

65. The call of a card may be repeated f untiLsuch 
card has been played. 

66. If a player called on to lead a suit have none of 
it, the penalty is paid. 

CARDS PLAYED IN ERROR, OR NOT PLAYED 
TO A TRICK. 

67. If the third hand play before the second, the 
fourth hand may play before his partner. 

68. Should the third hand not have played, and 
the fourth play before his partner, the latter may be 
called on to win, or not to win the trick. 

69. If any one omit playing to a former trick, and 
such error be not discovered until he has played to 
the next, the adversaries may claim a new deal ; 
should they decide that the deal stand good, the sur- 
plus card at the end of the hand is considered to have 

* i.e., whichever of them next first has the lead, 
t At every trick. 



250 TETE LAWS OP WHIST. 

been played to the imperfect trick, but does not con- 
stitute a revoke therein. 

70. If any one play two cards to the same triek, 
or mix his trump, "or other card, with a trick to which 
it does not properly belong, and the mistake be not 
discovered until the hand is played out, he is answer- 
able for all consequent revokes he may have made.* 
If, during the play of the hand, the error be detected, 
the tricks may be counted face downwards, in order 
to ascertain whether there be among them a card 
too many: should this be the case, they may be 
searched, and the card restored ; the player is, how- 
ever, liable for all revokes which he may have mean- 
while made. 



THE REVOKE. 

71. Is when a player, holding one or more cards of 
the suit led, plays a card of a different suit.f 

72. The penalty for a revoke : — 

I. Is at the option of the adversaries, who, at the end 
of the hand, may either take three tricks from 
the revoking player J — or deduct three points 
from his score — or add three to their own score ; 

II. Can be claimed for as many revokes as occur dur- 
^ • ing the hand ; 

HI. Is applicable only to the score of the game in 

which it occurs ; 
IV. Cannot be divided, i.e., a player cannot add one 

or two to his own score and deduct one or two 

from the revoking player ; 

* Vide also Law 46. t Vide also Law 61. 

t And add them to their own. 



THE LAWS OF WHTST. 251 

V. Takes precedence of every other score, e.g., — The 
claimants two — their opponents nothing — the 
former add three to their score — and thereby win 
a treble game, even should the latter have made 
thirteen tricks, and held four honors. 

73. A revoke is established, if the trick in which it 
occur be turned and quitted, i.e., the hand removed 
from that trick after it has been turned face down- 
wards on the table — or if either the revoking player 
or his partner, whether in his right turn or other- 
wise, lead or play to the following trick. 

74. A player may ask his partner whether he has 
not a card of the suit which he has renounced ; 
should the question be asked before the trick is turned 
and quitted, "subsequent turning and quitting does 
not establish the revt>ke, and the error may be cor- 
rected, unless the question be answered in the nega- 
tive, or unless the revoking player or his partner 
have led or played to the following trick. 

75. At the end of the hand, the claimants of a re- 
voke may search all the tricks.* 

76. If a player discover his mistake in time to save 
a revoke, the adversaries, whenever they think fit, 
may call the card thus played in error, or may re- 
quire him to play his highest or lowest card to that 
trick in which he has renounced; — any player or 
players who have played after him may withdraw 
their cards and substitute others : the cards with 
drawn are not liable to be called. 

77. If a revoke be claimed, and the accused player 
or his partner mix the cards before they have been 
sufficiently examined by the adversaries, the revoke 

* Vide Law 77. 



252 THE LAWS OF WHIST. 

is established. The mixing of the cards only renders 
the proof of a revoke difficult, but does not prevent 
the claim, and possible establishment, of the penalty. 

78. A revoke cannot be claimed after the cards 
have been cut for the following deal. 

79. The revoking player and his partner may, 
under all circumstances, require the hand in which 
the revoke has been detected to be played out. 

80. If a revoke occur, be claimed and proved, bets 
on the odd trick, or on amount of score, must be 
decided by the actual state of the latter, after the 
penalty is paid. 

81. Should the players on both sides subject them- 
selves to the penalty of one or more revokes, neither 
can win the game ; each is punished at the discretion 
of his adversary.* 

82. In whatever way the penalty be enforced, 
under no circumstances can a player win the game 
by the result of the hand during which he has re- 
voked; he cannot score more than f6ur. (Vide 
Rule 61.) 

CALLING FOR NEW CARDS. 

83. Any player (on paying for them) before, but 
not after, the pack be cut for the deal, may call for 
fresh cards. He must call for two new packs, of 
which the dealer takes his choice. 

GENERAL RULES. 

84. Where a player and his partner have an op- 
tion of exacting from their adversaries one of two 
* In the manner prescribed in Law 72. 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 253 

penalties, they should agree who is to make the elec- 
tion, but must not consult with one another which 
of the two penalties it is advisable to exact ; if they 
do so consult they lose their right ; * and if either of 
them, with or without consent of his partner, de- 
mand a penalty to which he is entitled, such decision 
is final. 

This rule does not apply in exacting the penalties for a revoke ; 
partners have then a right to consult. 

85. Any one during the play of a trick, or after the 
four cards are played, and before, but not after, they 
are touched for the purpose of gathering them to- 
gether, may demand that the cards be placed before 
their respective players. 

86. If any one, prior to his partner playing, should 
call attention to the trick — either by saying that it 
is his, or by naming his card, or, without being 
required so to do, by drawing it towards him — the 
adversaries may require that opponent's partner to 
play the highest or lowest of the suit then led, or to 
win or lose f the trick. 

87. In all cases where a penalty has been incurred, 
the offender is bound to give reasonable time for the 
decision of his adversaries. 

88. If a bystander make any remark which calls 
the attention of a player or players to an oversight 
affecting the score, he is liable to be called on, by the 
players only, to pay the stakes and all bets on that 
game or rubber. 

89. A bystander, by agreement among the players, 
may decide any quesion. 

* To demand any penalty. | i.«., refrain from winning. 



254 THE LAWS OF WHIST. 

90. A card or cards torn or marked must be either 
replaced by agreement, or new cards called at the 
expense of the table. 

91. Any player may demand to see the last trick 
turned, and no more. Under no circumstances can 
more than eight cards be seen during the play of the 
hand, viz. : the four cards on the table which have 
not have been turned and quitted, and the last trick 
turned. 



THE LAWS OF WHIST. 255 



ETIQUETTE OF WHIST. 



The following rules belong to the established Eti- 
quette of Whist. They are not called laws, as it is 
difficult — in some cases impossible — to apply any 
penalty to their infraction, and the only remedy is to 
cease to play with players who habitually disregard 
them. 

Two packs of cards are invariably used at Clubs : 
if possible this should be adhered to. - 

Any one, having the lead and several winning cards 
to play, should not draw a second card out of his 
hand until his partner has played to the first trick, 
such act being a distinct intimation that the former 
has played a winning card. 

No intimation whatever, by word or gesture, should 
be given by a player as to the state of his hand, or 
of the game.* 

A player who desires the cards to be placed, or who 
demands to see the last trick, t should do it for his 
own information only, and not in order to invite the 
attention of bis partner. 

No player should object to refer to a bystander who 
professes himself uninterested in the game, and able 

* The question " Who dealt ? " is irregular, and if asked should not 
be answered. 
t Or who asks what the trump suit is. 



256 THE LAWS OF WHIST. 

to decide any disputed question of facts ; as to who 
played any particular card — whether honors were 
claimed though not scored, or vice versd — etc., etc. 

It is unfair to revoke purposely'; having made a 
revoke, a player is not justified in making a second 
in order to conceal the first. 

Until the players have made such bets as they wish, 
bets should not be made with bystanders. 

Bystanders should make no remark, neither should 
they by word or gesture give any intimation of the 
state of the game until concluded and scored, nor 
should they walk round the table to look at the dif- 
ferent hands. 

No one should look over the hand of a player 
against whom he is betting. 



DUMMY 
Is played by three players. 

One hand, called Dummy's, lies exposed on the 
table. 

The laws are the same as those of Whist, with the 
following exceptions :-— 

I. Dummy deals at the commencement of each rubber. 

IL Dummy is not liable to the penalty for a revoke, 
as his adversaries see his cards : should he * re- 
voke and the error not be discovered until the 
trick is turned and quitted, it stands good.f 

• {. e. Dummy's hand. If Dummy's partner revokes, he is liable to 
the usual penalties. 

t And the hand proceeds as though the revoke had not been dis- 
covered. 



